JUDGMENT 1. - By this writ petition, the petitioner has sought the following relief: "a) That the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction to the respondent no.1 to repair the said Hydraulic Crane and restore it to working order as the Crane is under warranty and no departure can be made by the respondent no.1 from it; b) That the Hon'ble court may kindly be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction to the respondent no.1 to either completely repair and restore the Hydraulic Crane to working order or replace the same by new one; c) That the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction to the respondent no.2 that no harsh and coercive methods be adopted for recovery except with the process of law." 2. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and carefully perused the relevant material on record, it is noticed that a Hydraulic Crane was purchased by one Ikbal Singh from respondent no.1 Rajesh Motors. Albeit, the petitioner Teerath Singh is said to be the Power of Attorney Holder of Ikbal Singh, but no such document was found to have been placed on record, which could evince that the petitioner was the power of Attorney Holder of Ikbal singh. On this very sole ground, the writ petition deserves to be dismissed out-rightly. 3. However, without prejudice to the above even if it is presumed that a contract was entered into between the parties, the petitioner cannot be permitted to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. In the realm of contract, interference through writ jurisdiction is not proper, particularly when no unfairness is alleged. Even in the case of a contract by the Government as a public utility undertaking, the Court cannot interfere with the terms of the contract, unless they are discriminatory unreasonable or capricious. In the instant case, Ikbal Singh purchased the Hydraulic Crane on loan. He used the said crane for about 531 hours. He did not raise any objection during the said period. The writ petition is found to have been filed malafidely with a view to defraud the respondents. 4. So far as prayer clause (c) is concerned, the petitioner has an alternate remedy, which can be availed by way of filing an application before the Debt Recovery Tribunal. 5. He did not raise any objection during the said period. The writ petition is found to have been filed malafidely with a view to defraud the respondents. 4. So far as prayer clause (c) is concerned, the petitioner has an alternate remedy, which can be availed by way of filing an application before the Debt Recovery Tribunal. 5. In view of above, I find no merit in this writ petition and the same being not maintainable and further being bereft of any merit deserves to be dismissed, which stands dismissed accordingly. 6. Consequent upon the dismissal of writ petition, the stay application, filed therewith, does not survive and that also stands dismissed.Writ Petition Dismissed. *******