JUDGMENT : P.K. Mohanty, J. - The Petitioner, a transport firm, represented by its Managing Partner has approached this Court for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the opposite parties to clear up its dues along with 18% interest from the date of its entitlement along with compensation for mental agony, within a stipulated time for the post of litigation. 2. The grievance of the Petitioner firm is that it had executed different contract works under the Orissa State Commercial Transport Corporation (Opposite party No. 2) between 1981 and 1983 including intraport transportation work. But since after 1989 opposite party No. 2 did not allot any work and on the other hand did not take any steps to clear up the outstanding dues of the Petitioner for which it made representation to opposite party No 1 for appropriate direction to opposite party No. 2 to release the outstanding dues. Opposite party No. 2 however, without paying the outstanding dues, intervened by a letter to the office of opposite party No. 1 wherein it gave particulars and reason for non-payment, a copy whereof is Annexure-2. The Petitioner made further representation to opposite party No. 1 and' in turn, opposite party No. 1 instructed opposite party No. 2 to settle the matter. It is contended that in spite of repeated approaches and direction from the Government nothing having happened, it reminded opposite party No. 2 to clear up the bills. On, 7-10-1992 on a representation of the Petitioner, opposite party No. 1 made a further direction to opposite party No. 2 to clear up the arrear dues. A series of correspondences having yielded no result, the Petitioner served a pleader notice on the opposite parties for action as per law claiming payment of a sum of Rs. 89, 96,0001- with 18% interest. But instead of clearing the dues, opposite party No. 2 replied to wait till the decision of the Government was received. Hence, the Petitioner has approached this Court for a direction to the opposite parties to clear up the dues with interest and compensation for delayed payment. 3. 89, 96,0001- with 18% interest. But instead of clearing the dues, opposite party No. 2 replied to wait till the decision of the Government was received. Hence, the Petitioner has approached this Court for a direction to the opposite parties to clear up the dues with interest and compensation for delayed payment. 3. The main question that arises for consideration in this writ petition is, whether to enforce payment of dues under a, contract with the State or with an instrumentality of a State, or to enforce contractual obligations under a contract pure and simple, a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is maintainable. Mr. A.K. Mohapatra, learned Counsel for the Petitioner has submitted that the Orissa State Commercial Transport Corporation (opposite party No. 2 herein) is a State within the meaning of. Article 12 of the Constitution of India and thus, is amenable to the writ jurisdiction of this Court, inasmuch as, it is contended that even for enforcing a contractual obligation as against the State, a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is maintainable. Sri Mohapatra, in support of his case, referred to the decision in Hindustan Sugar Mills Vs. State of Rajasthan and Others. It is the submission of the learned Counsel that the Government should honour its obligation arising out of a contract and should not drive the Citizen concern to file a suit for recovery of the amount. In a democratic society governed by the rule of law, it is the duty of the State to do what is fair and just to the citizen and the State should not see to defeat the legitimate claim of the citizen adopting legalistic attitude but should do what is fair and just. The facts of the case are quite different than the present one; What,was the consideration before the Apex Court in the aforesaid case was, whether the freight formed part of the sale price within the meaning of definition of the term and hence no sales tax would be payable by the Government on the amount of freight. In such situation, when it involved a question of Interpretation and the applicability of a statute in terms of the agreement, the Apex Court held that the Government should honour its legal obligation evert arising out of a contract. 4. In such situation, when it involved a question of Interpretation and the applicability of a statute in terms of the agreement, the Apex Court held that the Government should honour its legal obligation evert arising out of a contract. 4. The learned Counsel has placed reliance on the decision in State of Bihar and others Vs. Subhash Singh, to contend that the writ petition to enforce a contractual obligation is maintainable. Suffice it to say that the,facts of the case are totally different,and the decision was rendered on a different context. The Apex Court held that the Constitutional courts exercise their power of a judicial review and the direction of the High Court to consider the case of the writ Petitioner and to dispose of it with a reasoned 8 order necessarily means that the authorities should discharge their duties expeditiously as enjoined under the Rules and as per the directions and where the authorities do not do so, they are required to give explanation to the Court as to the circumstances in which they could not comply with the direction issued by the Court or if there was any unavoidable delay, they should have sought for time to comply. The case referred to has no relevance to the facts and point involved in the present case. Mr. Mohapatra, referred to a Bench decision of this Court in O.J. C. No. 4565 of 1991 decided on 4-1-1994 and submitted in the aforesaid case, the Court entertained such a writ application for enforcement of a contractual right and therefore, the present writ application should, be held to be maintainable. The decision rendered in facts situation of a given case has to be considered. The question of maintainability of the writ: petition was neither raised nor the subject matter was considered and as such, would' not be a precedent with regard to maintainability of a writ petition. 5. The question of maintainability of a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution to enforce contractual right came up for consideration before the Apex Court in State of U.P. and others Vs. Bridge and Roof Co. (India) Ltd.. In that case, the Bridge & Roof Company (India) Ltd., a public sector Corporation entered with a works contract with the Government of Uttar Pradesh for rehabilitation and improvement of certain stretch of road in the State of Uttar Pradesh. Bridge and Roof Co. (India) Ltd.. In that case, the Bridge & Roof Company (India) Ltd., a public sector Corporation entered with a works contract with the Government of Uttar Pradesh for rehabilitation and improvement of certain stretch of road in the State of Uttar Pradesh. The tenders were opened and the Respondent's tender was accepted. The dispute was with regard to certain payment which the Respondent claimed to be due whereas the Appellant. Government of Uttar Pradesh took the plea that it is entitled to retain. The Apex Court held that the remedy by way of a writ petition adopted by the Respondent is misconceived, It is held that the contract between the parties is a contract in the realm of private law. This is a statutory contract. It is governed by the provisions of the Contract Act, or may be also by certain provisions of the Sale of Goods Act. Any dispute relating to interpretation of the terms and conditions of such a Contract cannot be agitated, and could not have been agitated in a writ petition. That is a matter either for arbitration as provided by the contract or for Civil Court, as the case may be. Whether any amount is due to the Respondent from the Appellant Government under the contract and, if so, how much and the further question whether retention or refusal to pay any amount by the Government is justified, or not, are all matters which cannot be agitated in or adjudicated upon in a writ petition. If any amount is wrongly withheld by the Government, the remedy of the Respondent is to raise a dispute as provided by the, Contract or to approach the Civil Court as the case may be according to law. In paragraph-18 of the said judgment, the Hon'ble Apex Court observed: Accordingly, it must be held that the writ,petition filed by the Respondent for the issuance of a writ of mandamus restraining the Government from deducting or withholding a particular sum, which according to the Respondent is payable to it under the contract, was wholly misconceived and was not maintainable in law. (See the decision of this Court in Assistant Excise Commissioner and Others Vs. Issac Peter and Others, (See A.I.R.S. C.W. 2616), where the law on the subject has been discussed fully). The writ petition ought to have been dismissed on this ground alone. 6. (See the decision of this Court in Assistant Excise Commissioner and Others Vs. Issac Peter and Others, (See A.I.R.S. C.W. 2616), where the law on the subject has been discussed fully). The writ petition ought to have been dismissed on this ground alone. 6. In yet another recent judgment in State of Himachal Pradesh Vs. Raja Mahendra Pal and Others the Apex Court laid down that High Court would not ordinarily entertain a writ petition under Article 226 to enforce a contractual right, particularly when an efficacious alternative remedy is available. It has been held that the right to livelihood under Article 21 does not include all sorts of claims relating to legal or contractual rights for exercising writ jurisdiction. 7. The present writ petition is for clearance of bills of the Petitioner's firm said to have been executed in terms of the contract entered into between the Petitioner and the Orissa State Commercial Transport Corporation during and between 1981 and 1983. Neither the agreement nor the work order has been brought on record, inasmuch as, the Petitioner now may not be entitled to lay a claim before a Civil Court for the dues relating to a period 'between 1981 and 1983..The purported acknowledgment if any, of the year 1998, beyond the period of limitation, may not help the Petitioner, since such an acknowledgment shall not save limitation in any event, we are not expressing any opinion on that score. 8. In any view of the matter, the prayer of the Petitioner for a direction to the opposite parties to make payment of its outstanding dues arises out of a contract between the parties between the year 1981 and 1983 and therefore, any dispute relating to interpretation of the terms and conditions of a contract or any over-due amount arising therefrom, has to be worked out in the common law forum and an aggrieved party is not entitled to approach the writ court for enforcement of a contractual obligation for payment of outstanding bills. This is a matter for the common law forum i.e., the Civil Court. Whether, the amount, if any, is due to the Petitioner from the opposite party-Corporation under the contract and how much and whether the refusal to pay any amount by the Corporation is justified or not would be matters not within the scope and ambit of and cannot be agitated in a writ petition. Whether, the amount, if any, is due to the Petitioner from the opposite party-Corporation under the contract and how much and whether the refusal to pay any amount by the Corporation is justified or not would be matters not within the scope and ambit of and cannot be agitated in a writ petition. Whether the Petitioner is entitled to any amount arising out of the agreement, whether he had executed the agreement in the year 1981...83 and as to whether he is entitled to and the Corporation is liable to pay the amount, are matters which are to be found from evidence brought on record and have to be agitated in a common law forum. The High Court would not entertain writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to enforce a contractual obligation pure and simple. We hold that the writ petition is misconceived in law and is dismissed as not maintainable. 9. In the above premises, we hold that the present writ application is misconceived in law and is not maintainable. 10. The writ petition is dismissed as such. P.C. Naik, J. 11. I agree. Writ petition dismissed. Final Result : Dismissed