JUDGMENT This appeal is filed being aggrieved by the order dated 18-1-2008 wherein the learned Single Judge of this Court has granted clarification sought for in the application LA. No. 1 of 2007 in respect of the order dated 12-8-2008 passed pursuant to settlement arrived at between the parties. 2. Writ Petition No. 17461 of 2005 was filed by the respondents herein seeking for a mandamus directing the respondents to supply the iron ore fine as per the letters of intent dated 23-12-2003, 26-12-2003 and 31-12-2003. It is averred in the petition that petitioners are engaged in the business of quarrying granites and exports. The respondent is holding mining lease issued by the State Government in respect of the mines situated in Subbarayanahalli and Ubbalagundi Sandoor Taluk, Bellary District. The respondent entered into a rising agreement with M/s. Kalyani Ferrous Industries for extraction of iron ore. M/s. Kirloskar Ferrous Limited, has conducted the quarrying operation and have extracted iron ore lumps. While conducting the quarrying operations, the mud and iron fines had been dumped separately. These mud and iron fines are being sold by the respondent-company in favour of different persons. The petitioners made an application seeking for supply of iron ore fines from Subbarayanahalli iron ore mines waste dumps. The respondent issued 'letter or intent' agreeing to supply the quantity specified therein subject to payment of the total value of the material. The details with regard to the issue of letter of intent and the payments made are as under: 3. The respondent has failed to make any supplies even though letter of intent was issued and even after depositing of the entire amount. It is averred that the above said table would clearly show that respondent has not made supply as per letter of intent and letter of intent specifies that the supplies be made before 31-12-2004 subject to availability of iron ore fines. The respondent did not make any effort to give supplies to the petitioners despite approaching them on several occasions and except for a small quantity, the respondent has failed to supply any quantity to the petitioners. The respondent is bound to supply in accordance with the letter of intent and on 12-4-2005 respondent issued an endorsement accepting the fact that they are liable to supply the quantity as stated therein. The petitioners have made huge investment relying upon the allotments made by the respondent-company. The respondent is bound to supply in accordance with the letter of intent and on 12-4-2005 respondent issued an endorsement accepting the fact that they are liable to supply the quantity as stated therein. The petitioners have made huge investment relying upon the allotments made by the respondent-company. The petitioners have purchased 184 vehicles, excavators etc. The petitioners have also installed weighing bridge and other office equipments and petitioners together with other companies have made a joint investment of Rs. 22,78,02,976/- relying upon the letter of intent issued by the respondents and hence the writ petition, to supply the iron ore fines as per letter of intent issued by the respondents. 4. During the pendency of the writ petition, petitioners filed a memo along with the copy of letter said to have been addressed by the respondents to dispose of the writ petition in terms of letter dated 29-7-2005 and Counsel for respondents had no objections for the disposal of the writ petition in terms of the letter dated 29-7-2005. Therefore, the writ petition was disposed of on 12-8-2005 by passing the following order: "Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of directing the respondent to deliver 1.75 metric tons of 65% iron ore fines to the petitioners at the rate of Rs. 577/- per metric ton ex-mine basis including royalty, forest permit charges, cess excluding loading charge taxes etc., and that the material would be released at the rate of 10 thousand metric tons at a time against the advance payment". 5. Thereafter, an application was filed by the Counsel appearing for the petitioners to make certain corrections in paras 2 and 4 of the order and accordingly para 4 was modified by order dated 31-8-2005 which reads as follows.- "Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of directing the respondent to deliver 1. 75 lakhs metric tons (amended vide Court order dated 31-8-2005 of 65% iron ore fines to the petitioners at the rate of Rs. 577/- per metric ton ex-mine basis including royalty, forest permit charges, cess excluding loading charges, taxes etc., and that the material would be released at the rate of 10 thousand metric tons at a time against the advance payment. The respondent shall deliver the material based on the priority and on the present MMTC price till the supply is completed". 6. The respondent shall deliver the material based on the priority and on the present MMTC price till the supply is completed". 6. Subsequently, respondent in the writ petition filed a review petition to recall the order dated 12-8-2005 denying the statement and the contents of letter dated 29-7-2005 making serious allegations against the Chief General Manager of the appellant herein. Hence, notice was issued in the said review petition filed by the respondents and notice was also issued to the Managing Director and a detail affidavit was filed by the Managing Director denying the allegations made against the previous Chairman-Managing Director of the company. Hence, the respondent-review petitioner filed a petition for withdrawal of the review petition. Hence, the review petition was permitted to be withdrawn with costs. Thereafter, an application I.A. No. 1 of 2007 was filed by the petitioners requesting the Court to clarify the order of Court dated 12-8-2005 stating that Court except by disposing of the writ petition in terms of the letter dated 29-7-2005 in para 4 of the order has only directed the respondent to deliver 1. 75 lakhs metric tons of 65% iron ore fines at the rate of Rs. 577/- per metric ton ex-mine basis including royalty, forest permit charges, cess excluding loading charges, taxes, etc., and that the material would be released at the rate of 10 thousand metric tons at a time against the advance payment. To the said I.A. No. 1 of 2007, respondent filed counter stating that the I.A. No. 1 of 2007 seeking for clarification of the order is not maintainable as the application is barred by limitation. Since the application is filed after two years, the application is liable to be dismissed as barred by res judicata. It was also contended that letter dated 29-7-2005 issued by the respondent subject to the condition that the petitioners shall withdraw W.P. No. 16943 of 2005. However, the petitioners contrary to the said condition except of withdrawing the writ petition have obtained a similar order in the writ petition in their favour and therefore, no clarification is required in the order passed by the Court on 12-8-2005. Accordingly, the application I.A. No. 1 of 2007 is liable to be dismissed. However, the petitioners contrary to the said condition except of withdrawing the writ petition have obtained a similar order in the writ petition in their favour and therefore, no clarification is required in the order passed by the Court on 12-8-2005. Accordingly, the application I.A. No. 1 of 2007 is liable to be dismissed. The learned Single Judge after considering the contention of the Counsel appearing for the parties disposed of the application I.A. No. 1 of 2007 in W.P. No. 17461 of 2005 directing the respondent to deliver iron ore fines as agreed upon in its letter dated 29-7-2005. Being aggrieved by the said order dated 18-1-2008, this writ appeal is filed by the respondent in the application M/s. Mysore Minerals Limited. 7. The above writ appeal was admitted and interim order was granted on 13-8-2008 staying the operation and implementation of the order dated 18-1-2008 made in W.P. No. 17461 of 2005. However, the appellant was given liberty to file appropriate application, if it is so advised, seeking appropriate interim relief with regard to the material already supplied pursuant to the order impugned in the writ petition. 8. A joint memo has been filed in this appeal on 29-1-2009 signed by the appellant, respondent and Counsel appearing for the respondent averring as follows: "1. It is submitted that the respondents are agreeable to purchase 1.20 lakhs metric tons of 65% iron ore fines from the appellant-company at the basic rate of Rs. 811/- PMT. On ex-mine basis excluding royalty, forest permit charges, cess, loading charges, forest levy, taxes etc., against the advance payment. 2. It is submitted that the appellant-company is agreeable for the same to deliver 1.20 lakhs metric ton of 65% iron ore fines to the respondents at the basis rate of Rs. 811/- PMT excluding all. 3. It is submitted that the respondents hereby agree to take the delivery of the above said entire quantity of iron ore fines from appellant-company's stock yard within one month's time from the date of issuance of delivery order against the full payment. In the event of the respondents failed to take the delivery of the entire quantity of iron ore fines within one month, then the appellant company will revise the price as and when the upward revision of MMTC price if take place over and above the agreed basic price of Rs. 811/- for the non-lifting quantity. In the event of the respondents failed to take the delivery of the entire quantity of iron ore fines within one month, then the appellant company will revise the price as and when the upward revision of MMTC price if take place over and above the agreed basic price of Rs. 811/- for the non-lifting quantity. 4. It is submitted that the appellant-company is selling the above said 1.20 lakhs of MTS of 65% iron ore fines on par with the prevailing market MMTC price, which will not result in financial loss to the appellant-company. For the said price the respondents have agreed. Wherefore, it is respectfully prayed by both the parties that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to dispose off the appeal in terms of the joint memo". 9. The le4rned Senior Counsel for the appellant has filed written submission regarding joint memo reiterating the facts leading to the filing of the joint memo and seeking for acceptance of the joint memo dated 29-1-20098 1 to dispose of the writ appeal in terms thereof. 10. But we unable to appreciate the contention of learned Counsel appear in for the appellant or that of the learned Counsel appearing for the respondent based on the joint memo dated 29-1-2009 to supply 1.2 lakhs metric tons of +65% iron ore fines at the rate of Rs. 811/- PMT, because the power of judicial review of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has to be exercised very sparingly, unless otherwise the same is warranted. It may not be proper for this Court to affix its seal in the matter of contractual obligations between the parties which are to be decided only as per the terms of the contract entered into between the parties. 11. The law on the point is well-settled by the Apex Court in the case of ABL Internationa1 Limited v Export Credit Guarantee Corporation of India Limited, wherein the following earlier decisions of the Apex Court are referred to: (i) K.N. Guruswamy v State of Mysore and Others; (ii) Basheshar Nath v Commissioner of Income-tax, Delhi and Rajasthan and Another ; (iii) State of Madhya Pradesh and Another v. Thakur Bharat Singh . (iv) D.F.O. South Kheri and Others v Ram Sanehi Singh; (v) Erusian Equipment and Chemicals Limited v State of West Bengal and Another ; (vi) M/s. Radhakrishna Agarwal and Others v State of Bihar and Others ; (vii) Ms. Kasturi Lal Lakshmi Reddy v State of Jammu and Kashmir and Another; (viii) Gujarat State Financial Corporation v Lotus Hotels Private Limited; . (ix) Life Insurance Corporation of India v Escorts Limited and Others; (x) M/s. Dwarkadas Marfatia and Sons v Board of Trustees of the Port of Bombay 11; (xi) Bareilly Development Authority and Another v Ajay Pal Singh and Others,. (xii) Kumari Shrilekha Vidyarthi and Others v State of Uttar Pradesh and Others; (xiii) L.I.C. of India and Another v Consumer Education and Research Centre and Others3; (xiv) Style (Dress Land) v Union Territory, Chandigarh and Another; (xv) Air India Limited v Cochin International Airport Limited and Others; (xvi) Kerala State Electricity Board and Another v Kurten E. Kalathil and Others. 12. In ABL International Limited's case, the Supreme Court has: demarcated the power of the judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in contractual matters as hereunder: "(1) Judicial review is permissible both at the pre-contract stage and post-contract stage though the scope of interference varies depending upon the stage of review. The scope of judicial review in post-contractual matters is very much narrower. (2) In pre-contract stage the action of the State of its instrumentality has to satisfy the test of reasonableness as enunciated by the Supreme Court in various decisions interpreting Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Action should be fair, just, reasonable and devoid of arbitrariness. (3) The pre-contract stage squarely falls within the realm of public law character and, therefore, the decision must not only be tested by principles of Wednesbury's principles of reasonableness but must be free from arbitrariness not affected by bias or actuated by mala fides. (4) Post-contract stage falls within the realm of private law. But nonetheless the requirement of Article 14 and contractual obligations are not alien concepts. They can co-exist. (5) Every holder of a public office by virtue of which he acts on behalf of a State or public body is ultimately accountable to the people in whom sovereignty vests. (4) Post-contract stage falls within the realm of private law. But nonetheless the requirement of Article 14 and contractual obligations are not alien concepts. They can co-exist. (5) Every holder of a public office by virtue of which he acts on behalf of a State or public body is ultimately accountable to the people in whom sovereignty vests. Therefore, even in this private law sphere when a public officer exercises power it is in the nature of a public duty and, therefore, as his action is in import of public interest that factor alone is sufficient to import at least the minimum requirements of public law obligations. The requirement of Article 14 being the duty to act fairly, justly and reasonably, such action of a public officer in discharge of public duty should conform to the said requirement of law. (6) The order terminating a contract on the ground of breach of terms of the contract is not vitiated for not disclosing the reasons, the application of mind, by way of consideration of the case of the defaulting party. Such an order when challenged in Court could be justified by producing the relevant records and showing the application of mind to the said material after following the principles of natural justice which would meet the requirement of law as Courts are only concerned with the process of decision making and not the decision itself. (7) When some defect is found in the decision-making process, the Court must exercise its discretionary power under Article 226 with great caution and circumspection and should exercise it only in furtherance of public interest and not merely on the making out a legal point. (8) Writ petition against a State and its instrumentality, arising out of contractual obligation is maintainable. Even disputed questions of fact could be gone into, if necessary by recording of evidence. Monetary claims can also be entertained. But the normal rule is not to entertain such claims. But, only in exceptional cases when the circumstances warrant such an interference, the Court has the power and could be exercised. In other words, only in rarest of rate cases the exercise of power is justified. It is not want of power or jurisdiction. It is a case of self-restraint. But the normal rule is not to entertain such claims. But, only in exceptional cases when the circumstances warrant such an interference, the Court has the power and could be exercised. In other words, only in rarest of rate cases the exercise of power is justified. It is not want of power or jurisdiction. It is a case of self-restraint. (9) A contract would not become statutory simply because it is for construction of a public utility and it has been awarded by State or a statutory body. (10) The interpretation and implementation of a covenant in a contract ordinarily cannot be the subject-matter of writ petition, and the same has to be determined according to the principles of the Contract Act". 13. In the present case, the learned Single Judge has not considered the question as to whether the writ petition can be entertained as the same purely relates to the contractual obligation between the parties. Mere filing of a joint memo by the parties, by itself, do not confer the jurisdiction on this Court to interfere with such contractual obligation. It is apparent on the face of the record that the order dated 12-8-2005 of the learned Single Judge came to be passed only on the submission of the Counsel for the parties and on the basis of application I.A. No. 1 of 2007 filed under Sections 151 and 152 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 for correction of the judgment. However, the said application was opposed by the appellant herein and as a result the learned Single Judge passed the order dated 18-1-2008 and the same reads as hereunder: "In the circumstances, objections raised by the respondent's Counsel are to be rejected. Accordingly, I.A. is allowed. Para 4 of the order dated 12-8-2005 has to be deleted, and in its place following paragraph shall be incorporated. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of directing the respondent to deliver the iron ore as agreed upon in its letter dated 29-7-2005". 14. It is apparent on the face of the record that the very lis relates to contractual agreement between the parties as to the rate of iron ore fines to be supplied and purchased between the parties. If the parties are agreeing to the terms of the contract, nothing prevents them to withdraw the writ petition and enter into an agreement independently. 15. If the parties are agreeing to the terms of the contract, nothing prevents them to withdraw the writ petition and enter into an agreement independently. 15. At one point of time, the learned Counsel for the petitioner filed review to withdraw the writ petition and the same was recorded. Thereafter for reasons best known to the writ petitioner, the withdrawal order was set aside and the memo was filed proposing to fix the rate at Rs. 577/- per metric ton which was recorded and the writ petition was disposed of by the learned Single Judge on 31-8-2005 modifying the earlier order dated 12-8-2005 and thereafter on 18-1-2008. But still the appeal has been preferred by the appellant against the order dated 18-1-2008 passed on I.A. No.1 of 2007. 16. Quite surprisingly, even pending the appeal, a joint memo was filed on 29-1-2009 agreeing the rate of Rs. 811/- PMT for supply of iron ore fines. There is an apparent difference as to the rate of iron ore fines agreed between the parties i.e., Rs. 577/- PMT and now at Rs. 811/- PMT. It is therefore obvious that what the parties want is only the seal of this Court for fixing the rate of Rs. 811/- PMT, which in our considered opinion is not permissible in law, as the contractual agreements has to be settled only between the parties and this Court, by invoking the powers of judicial review, cannot be made as a party to such contracts, as held by Supreme Court in ABL International Limited cases, wherein various judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court have been referred to above. 17. We are, therefore, of the considered opinion that the writ petition is liable to be dismissed as not maintainable. Accordingly writ appeal is allowed.