JUDGMENT : B.S. Chauhan, C.J. - This Writ Petition has been filed for issuing direction to the Opposite Parties to make payment of advocate fees along with 18% interest per annum. 2. The facts and circumstances giving rise to the case are that Petitioner who was Addl. Standing Counsel for the Central Government had appeared in the Court of Civil Judge (Senior Division), Cuttack in a Rule of Court proceeding under Arbitration Act wherein the award of Rs. 40 lakhs passed against the Opposite Parties was set aside on his persuasion. The Petitioner/Learned advocate vide letter dated 23.6.1999 sent a bill of Rs. 4,40,350/- as Counsel fees, but the said demand was not acceded to by the Opposite Parties. In spite of several request, as no heed has been paid, he filed this Writ Petition. 3. Dr. A.K. Rath, Learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner has submitted that Petitioner is entitled for the aforesaid amount of fee/ad valorem as the award given by the Arbitrator has been set aside by the Civil Court on the argument advanced by the Petitioner. 4. Mr. J K. Misra, Learned Asst. Solicitor General, has submitted that fees of the advocate is to be paid as per the schedule and agreement between the parties and not ad valorem. Opposite Parties are willing to pay the normal fees of the Counsel. More so, it has been contended that the Writ Petition is not maintainable for making recovery of the fees of the advocate. Thus the petition is liable to be dismissed. We have considered rival contentions of the parties and perused the record. 5. The issue involved herein is no more res integra. 6. In Govt. of Tamil Nadu and another Vs. R. Thillaivillalan the Apex Court considered a case where the High Court had directed for payment of the amount of professional fees of an advocate along with interest against which the Government of Tamil Nadu had approached the Hon'ble Supreme Court contending that such a relief could not have been given in exercise of the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution and in any case the award of interest was unjustified. The Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that having regard to the lapse of time, if the contentions of the Appellants were accepted, it would only serve to expose both the parties to a fresh bout of litigation and, therefore, in such circumstances, it was considered reasonable to decide the matter. This decision does not expressly decide whether a Writ Petition is maintainable or not and, therefore, is of no assistance to either of the parties. 7. In the case of Dr. Hari Nandan Singh v. U.P. Higher Education Services Commission, Allahabad and Anr. 1992 AIEC 359, the U.P. Higher Education Services Commission had unilaterally terminated the engagement of its Counsel. The Allahabad High Court relied upon the aforesaid' Judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Govt. of Tamil Nadu (supra) and directed for payment of the balance amount of Rs. 767/-. This decision, therefore, also does not support either of the parties. 8. The Supreme Court in its subsequent decision in Improvement Trust, Ropar v. S. Tejinder Singh Gujral and Ors. 1995 Supp (4) SCC 577 held that a Writ Petition does not lie for a recovery of amount by an advocate under the contract and, therefore, the High Court had committed an error in entertaining the Writ Petition for recovery of the professional fees. The relevant portion of the Judgment is as follows: We find that the High Court had allowed the Writ Petition filed by the Respondent-advocate for the recovery of his professional fees from the Petitioner. No Writ Petition can lie for recovery of an amount under a contract. The High Court was clearly wrong in entertaining and allowing the petition. There is no separate law, for the advocates. In the circumstances, we set aside the order passed by the Learned Single Judge on 26.7.1991 and dismiss the Writ Petition. The result is that the letters patent appeal pending before the Division Bench of the High Court would also come to an end. The appeal is allowed accordingly. 9. In Kerala State Electricity Board and Another Vs. Kurien E. Kalathil and Others the Supreme Court observed: We find that there is a merit in the first contention of Mr. Raval. Learned Counsel has rightly questioned the maintainability of the Writ Petition. The interpretation and implementation of a clause in a contract cannot be the subject-matter of a Writ Petition. Whether the contract envisages actual contract. Kurien E. Kalathil and Others the Supreme Court observed: We find that there is a merit in the first contention of Mr. Raval. Learned Counsel has rightly questioned the maintainability of the Writ Petition. The interpretation and implementation of a clause in a contract cannot be the subject-matter of a Writ Petition. Whether the contract envisages actual contract. If a term of contract is violated, ordinarily the remedy is not the Writ Petition under Article 226. We are also unable to agree with the observations of the High Court that the contractor was seeking enforcement of a statutory con tract.. A statute may expressly or impliedly confer power on a statutory body to enter into contracts in order to enable it to discharge its functions. Dispute arising out of the terms of such contracts or alleged breaches have to be settled by the ordinary principles of law of contract. The fact that one of the parties to the agreement is a statutory or public body will not by itself affect the principles to be applied. The disputes about the meaning of a covenant in a contract or its enforceability have to be determined according to the usual principles of the Contract Act....The contract between the parties is in the realm of private law. It is not a statutory contract. The disputes relating to interpretation of the terms and conditions of such a contract could not have been agitated in a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. That is a matter for adjudication by a Civil Court or in arbitration if provided for in the contract. Whether any amount is due and if so, how much and refusal of the Appellant to pay it is justified or not, are not the matters which could have been agitated and decided in a Writ Petition. 10. In State of Jammu & Kashmir v. Ghulam Mohd. Dar and Anr. AIR 2004 SC 510 , the Supreme Court observed: Furthermore, the Respondent herein filed the aforementioned Writ Petition for enforcing a contract qua contract. Although an objection has been taken as regards the maintainability of the Writ Petition by the Appellant herein, the same unfortunately has not been considered by the High Court. It is well settled that writ of or in the nature of mandamus would not ordinarily issue for enforcing the terms and conditions of a contract qua contract. Although an objection has been taken as regards the maintainability of the Writ Petition by the Appellant herein, the same unfortunately has not been considered by the High Court. It is well settled that writ of or in the nature of mandamus would not ordinarily issue for enforcing the terms and conditions of a contract qua contract. A writ of mandamus would issue when a question involving public Jaw character arises for consideration. 11. In New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. A.K. Saxena the Hon'ble Supreme Court considered the similar issue i.e. maintainability of Writ Petition for recovery of fee by an advocate and observed as follows: After this appeal was filed by an Order Dated 9.10.2003, this Court directed the Respondent to return all the files. We are informed that all the files have been returned. The Learned Counsel for the Respondent insists that full fees for all the matters must be paid to him. The Learned Senior Counsel for the Appellants states that no fees are payable to the Respondent. In our view, it is not for this Court, as it was not for the High Court to adjudicate upon such a disputed question of fact. The High Court should not have given the directions it did also because at the time the High Court passed the impugned order, Writ Petition No. 27380 of 2001 was pending. In this Writ Petition the Respondent had claimed payment of his fees. 12. While deciding the said case, reliance was placed by the Supreme Court on its earlier Judgment in R.D. Saxena Vs. Balram Prasad Sharma, ; wherein it had been held that in case the advocate's fees is not paid, he cannot retain the files of his client. The Court held as under: Like any other citizen, an advocate has a right to legal proceedings but subject to such restrictions as may be imposed by law or the rules made in that behalf. 13. In ABL International Ltd. and Another Vs. Export Credit Guarantee Corporation of India Ltd. and Others the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as follows: A perusal of this Judgment though shows that a Writ Petition involving serious disputed questions of facts which requires consideration of evidence which is not on record, will not normally be entertained by a Court in the exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. This decision again, in our opinion does not lay down an absolute rule that in all cases involving disputed questions of fact the parties should be relegated to a Civil suit. In this view of ours, we are supported by a Judgment of this Court in the case of Smt. Gunwant Kaur and Others Vs. Municipal Committee, Bhatinda and Others, ; where dealing with such situation of disputed questions of fact in a Writ Petition this Court held: The High Court observed that they will not determine disputed question of fact in a Writ Petition. But what facts were in dispute and what were admitted could only be determined after an affidavit in reply was filed by the State. The High Court, however, proceeded to dismiss the petition in limine. The High Court, is not deprived of its jurisdiction to entertain a petition under Article 226 merely because in considering the Petitioner's right to relief questions of fact may fall to be determined. In a petition under Article 226 the High Court has jurisdiction to try issues both of fact and law. Exercise of the jurisdiction is, it is true, discretionary, but the discretion must be exercised on sound judicial principles. When the petition raises questions of fact of a complex nature, which may for their determination require oral evidence to be taken, and on that account the High Court is of the view that the dispute may not appropriately be tried in a Writ Petition, the High Court may decline to try a petition. Rejection of a petition in limine will normally be justified, where the High Court is of the view that the petition is frivolous or because of the nature of the claim made dispute sought to be agitated, or that the petition against the party against whom relief is claimed is not maintainable or that the dispute raised thereby is such that it would be inappropriate to try it in the writ jurisdiction, or for analogous reasons. 14. The above Judgment of Gunwant Kaur finds support from another Judgment of this Court in the case of Century Spinning and Manufacturing Company Ltd. and Another Vs. 14. The above Judgment of Gunwant Kaur finds support from another Judgment of this Court in the case of Century Spinning and Manufacturing Company Ltd. and Another Vs. The Ulhasnagar Municipal Council and Another, ; wherein this Court held: Merely because a question of fact is raised, the High Court will not be justified in requiring the party to seek relief by the somewhat lengthy, dilatory and expensive process by a civil suit against a public body. The questions of fact raised by the petition in this case are elementary. 15. Thus, it is evident that where factual controversy is elementary, the writ jurisdiction may also be resorted to. No law of universal application can be laid down. As to whether a. Writ Petition is maintainable would depend upon the facts of a case. 16. The aforesaid decisions of the Supreme Court clearly lay down that generally a writ does not lie for recovery of an amount under a contract and even though a Statute may expressly or impliedly confer power on a statutory body to enter into contracts in order to enable it to discharge its functions but disputes arising out of the terms of such contracts have to be settled by the ordinary principles of law of contract. The fact that one of the parties to the agreement is a statutory or public body does not affect the principles to be applied. It has also been emphasized that such a contract is not a statutory contract and the disputes relating to interpretation of the terms and conditions of such a contract cannot be agitated in a Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. Thus, whether any amount is due or not and refusal to pay. it is justified or not are not matters which can be agitated and decided in a Writ Petition. 17. This apart, in Tejinder Singh Gujral (supra), which is a case specifically dealing with recovery of professional fees of a lawyer, it has been held in crystal clear words by the Supreme Court that a Writ Petition should not be entertained as there cannot be a separate law for advocates. The case in hand stands squarely covered by the said Judgment. 18. The Writ Petition is, accordingly, dismissed with liberty to the Petitioner to claim the reliefs before the appropriate forum or settle with Respondents amicably. No costs. B.N. Mahapatra, J. 19. The case in hand stands squarely covered by the said Judgment. 18. The Writ Petition is, accordingly, dismissed with liberty to the Petitioner to claim the reliefs before the appropriate forum or settle with Respondents amicably. No costs. B.N. Mahapatra, J. 19. I agree. Final Result : Dismissed