JUDGMENT R. Banumathi, C.J. The present appeal has been preferred against the order dated 20.9.2013 passed in W.P (C) No.1044/2009, in and by which the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition declining to order for refund of the sale amount and giving liberty to the petitioner-appellant to file civil suit before a competent court for refund of the amount, if so desires. 2. The appellant is a partnership firm, which participated in auction of various scrap materials of Central Coalfields Limited (CCL) on 8.7.2008 and successfully purchased the scrap materials enumerated in Lot Nos.6/44 and 7/44 and the appellant paid Rs.2,10,743/- and Rs.9,00,000/- through bank drafts to the respondent-CCL. After receipt of the aforesaid amount, delivery advice was given on 12.7.2008. The respondent-CCL issued letter/delivery order dated 23.8.2008 in favour of the appellant and asked the appellant to take delivery of scrap materials within 30 days from the date of the delivery advice. The case of the appellant is that as per terms and conditions of e-auction, the delivery order was to be issued within 30 days from the date of 12.7.2008, i.e. should have been issued on or before 11.8.2008, but the delivery advice was given on 23.8.2008 to the appellant after 40 days without any reason for the delay of ten days. Further grievance of the appellant is that during the course of cutting materials, Mr.Upendra Singh, Store-In-Charge of Kathara Store, started threatening the persons of the appellant along with some unsocial elements for the illegal demand and anti-social elements started disturbing the appellant’s persons and therefore, the appellant’s persons were unable to work and the appellant also made a complaint to the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Bokaro and in that prevailing situation, the appellant had no option left than to stop the work at site. The appellant made representation on 25.10.2008 to the concerned authority stating the facts and requesting the respondents to refund the aforesaid amount of Rs.Rs.2,10,743/- and Rs.9,00,000/- with interest and other monetary loss caused to the appellant. The appellant also sent a reminder to the concerned authority on 3.11.2008. In reply to the above letter, the respondents gave a letter dated 11.11.2008 to the appellant granting extension of the period of delivery to the appellant even though no such prayer for extension of time was made by the appellant. The appellant also sent a reminder to the concerned authority on 3.11.2008. In reply to the above letter, the respondents gave a letter dated 11.11.2008 to the appellant granting extension of the period of delivery to the appellant even though no such prayer for extension of time was made by the appellant. According to the appellant, it again wrote a letter dated 18.11.2008, interalia, stating that the appellant did not ask for extension of time and there is no question of lifting the materials within the extended period and further requested the respondent-CCL to refund the amount to the appellant along with interest. The respondents again wrote letters to the appellant, vide letter dated 20.11.2008 and 2.12.2008, extending the period for lifting the materials in question. Being aggrieved by non-refund of the amount of Rs.2,10,743/- and Rs.9,00,000/-, the appellant filed W.P (C) No.1044/2009. 3. After extracting clause 10 of the terms and conditions of e-auction notice, learned Single Judge held that as per clause 10 of the terms and conditions of e-auction notice, if the materials purchased are not lifted within the time stipulated, the money paid by the buyer/bidder will automatically be forfeited and in view of clause 10 of the terms and conditions of e-auction, prima facie the petitioner is not entitled to get refund of the money deposited by it. In so far as the allegation against the Store-In-Charge of Kathara Store of CCL and threat given by some anti-social elements is concerned, learned Single Judge held that it is disputed question of fact and writ court cannot decide the disputed questions of fact and gave liberty to the appellant to file civil suit for refund of the amount. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant, Mr. Mahesh Tiwary, contended that as per the terms and conditions of e-auction, from the date of confirmation of e-auction dated 12.7.2008, delivery order was to be given within 30 days, i.e. on or before 11.8.2008 but the delivery order was given after 40 days, i.e. 23.8.2008 and since the respondents have violated the terms and conditions even at the inception, the respondent-CCL is bound to refund full value of the money deposited towards lifting of scrap materials along with interest. It was further submitted that since the respondents have violated the terms and conditions of e-auction, the forfeiture clause – 10 cannot be invoked. It was further submitted that since the respondents have violated the terms and conditions of e-auction, the forfeiture clause – 10 cannot be invoked. Taking us through Annexure – 11, letter of the appellant dated 3.11.2008, learned counsel submitted that by the said letter, the appellant had clearly brought to the notice of the CCL about the conduct of the Store-In-Charge of Kathara Store and also the threat by the anti-social elements and without looking into the genuine grievance of the appellant, respondent-CCL, by its letter dated 11.11.2008, had only granted extension of the period of delivery to the appellant. Learned counsel submitted that the learned Single Judge was not right in holding that the writ court cannot decide the disputed question of fact and in directing the appellant to raise the issue by approaching the civil court. Placing reliance upon the judgment rendered in the case of Haryana Financial Corporation & Ano. V. Rajesh Gupta [ (2010) 1 SCC 655 ], learned counsel submitted that in a similar case, Hon’ble Supreme Court held that forfeiture clause is not applicable if there is violation on the part of the respondents. 5. Learned counsel for the respondent-CCL submitted that the respondent had acted in terms of the contract and only the appellant has failed to perform the contract and in view of clause 10 of the terms and conditions of e-auction, the amount deposited by the appellant has been rightly forfeited. Learned counsel, drawing our attention to the letter of the appellant, submitted that pursuant to the issuance of the delivery advice, authorization letter was issued on 25.8.2008 and the appellant also started cutting materials and while so, the appellant cannot make grievance against the respondents. Drawing our attention to the letter of the appellant dated 3.11.2008 (Annexure – 11), it was submitted that in the said letter, the appellant had stated that because of the fluctuation in the market, the appellant has not lifted the scrap materials and therefore, the appellant is only responsible for non-lifting of the scrap materials and the learned Single Judge rightly dismissed the writ petition. 6. We have considered the rival contentions and perused the materials on record and also the order of the writ court passed in W.P(C) No.1044/2009. 7. 6. We have considered the rival contentions and perused the materials on record and also the order of the writ court passed in W.P(C) No.1044/2009. 7. It is not in dispute that in the e-auction sale conducted on 12.7.2008,the appellant purchased two Lot nos.6/44 and 7/44 and as per the terms and conditions of e-auction, the appellant deposited full value of the aforesaid Lots, i.e.Rs.2,10,743/- and Rs.9,00,000/-, by way of bank draft. Necessary acceptance letter was issued to the appellant on 12.7.2008. Clause 9.1 of the terms and conditions of e-auction deals with delivery period, which reads as under:- “9.1. On payment of balance sale value along with applicable Duties and Taxes to my of the MSTC Offices, the Buyer shall obtain Delivery Order from MSTC on producing his e-auction photo Id Card. Delivery Period will be 30 days from the date of issue of Delivery Advice by the Principal as their sole discretion including the date of issue.” 8. It is the contention of the appellant that in terms of clause 9.1, delivery order should have been issued within 30 days from 12.7.2008, i.e. on or before 11.8.2008 but the delivery order was issued after 40 days with a delay of 10 days, i.e. on 23.8.2008 and because of such delay in issuance of delivery advice/delivery order the appellant was not in a position to lift the scrap materials. We find no substance in the contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant. Clause 9.1 of the terms and conditions of e-auction provides delivery period and it nowhere stipulates that delivery advice must be issued within 30 days of the e-auction. Moreover, delay in issuing Delivery Advice cannot be said to be the reason for not completing the work during the delivery period. Delayed issuance of the Delivery Advice would in no manner curtail the period provided under clause 9.1. According to the respondent-CCL, on 25.8.2008 the authorized person of the appellant approached CCL seeking permission for cutting and lifting scrap materials against the delivery advice dated 23.8.2008. Delayed issuance of the Delivery Advice would in no manner curtail the period provided under clause 9.1. According to the respondent-CCL, on 25.8.2008 the authorized person of the appellant approached CCL seeking permission for cutting and lifting scrap materials against the delivery advice dated 23.8.2008. According to the respondents, since the delivery advice was received in the office of SO (MM)/Depot Officer, Regional Stores, Kathara, on 27.8.2008, Office Order No.622 dated 31.8.2008 was issued by the Depot Officer, Regional Stores, Kathara, allowing the appellant to complete the cutting and lifting of Lot nos.3 and 4 by 21.9.2008 under supervision of the members of the Standing Committee. It is further stated that the representative of the appellant appeared before the Depot Officer seeking permission to commence the cutting and lifting against the delivery advice from 3.9.2008, which was granted and on the very same day, the appellant started cutting the scrap materials at the scrap yard of the Regional Stores, Kathara, from 4.9.2008. Permission was granted to the appellant for allowing six labourers and cutting instruments to enter into the premises of the scrap yard of Regional Stores, Kathara and those six labourers also started cutting the scrap materials of Lot nos.3 and 4 and cutting of scrap materials was completed by the labourers deployed on 13.9.2008, much before expiry of the delivery period granted to them upto 21.9.2008. According to the respondents, the appellant did not come to lift the scrap cut by them and only a letter was sent by the appellant seeking for extension of time till 15th November, 2008, to enable the appellant to lift the materials. According to the respondents, time was granted to the appellant and even during the extended delivery period granted to the appellant upto 15.11.2008, the appellant failed to lift the scrap materials and made a false claim for refund of money with interest without any basis. 9. According to the respondents, time was granted to the appellant and even during the extended delivery period granted to the appellant upto 15.11.2008, the appellant failed to lift the scrap materials and made a false claim for refund of money with interest without any basis. 9. The appellant mainly raised two grounds for non-lifting of scrap materials that – (i) there was delay in issuance of delivery order and the Store-In-Charge of Kathara Store of CCL made the appellant run nearly for 40 days unnecessarily and deliberately and there was violation of the clause 9.1 of the terms and conditions of e-auction in issuing delivery advice and (ii) Mr.Upendra Singh, Store-In-Charge of Kathara Store, along with some unsocial elements started threatening the appellant and disturbing the labourers mentally as well as every day at the place of work and the appellant had no option left than to stop work at the site and inform the Senior Police Officer by giving written complaint to the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Bokaro. Thus, according to the appellant, the respondent-CCL was responsible for non-lifting of the scrap materials and therefore, clause – 10 of the terms and conditions ofe-auction cannot be invoked and the appellant is entitled for refund of the amount. 10. Considering the rival contention of the parties and also going through the various correspondence between the parties, in particular letter of the appellant dated 3.11.2008, we are of the view that the dispute between the parties pertains to interpretation of the terms and conditions of the e-auction and performance of contract between the parties. It is well settled that the matters/disputes relating to the contract cannot be agitated through the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In decision rendered in the case of Rajasthan State Industrial Development And Investment Corporation And Another Vs. Diamond & Gem Development Corporation Limited And Another [ (2013) 5 SCC 470 , observing that the contract between the parties is in realm of a private law and that it is a matter of adjudication for civil court, Hon’ble Supreme Court held as under:- 19. There can be no dispute to the settled legal proposition that matters/disputes relating to contract cannot be agitated nor terms of the contract can be enforced through writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. There can be no dispute to the settled legal proposition that matters/disputes relating to contract cannot be agitated nor terms of the contract can be enforced through writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. Thus, writ court cannot be a forum to seek any relief based on terms and conditions incorporated in the agreement by the parties. (Vide: Bareilly Development Authority v. Ajai Pal Singh, (1989) 2 SCC 116 and State of U.P. v. Bridge & Roof Co. (India) Ltd., (1996) 6 SCC 22 ). 20. In Kerala SEB v. Kurien E. Kalathil (2000) 6 SCC 293 , this Court held that a writ cannot lie to resolve a disputed question of fact, particularly to interpret the disputed terms of a contract observing as under: (SCC pp. 298-99, paras 10-11) “10. ….The interpretation and implementation of a clause in a contract cannot be the subject-matter of a writ petition. ….If a term of a 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 contract….. 11. …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…. The contractor should have relegated to other remedies.” 21. It is evident from the above, that generally the court should not exercise its writ jurisdiction to enforce the contractual obligation. The primary purpose of a writ of mandamus, is to protect and establish rights and to impose a corresponding imperative duty existing in law. It is designed to promote justice (ex debito justiceiae). The grant or refusal of the writ is at the discretion of the court. The writ cannot be granted unless it is established that there is an existing legal right of the applicant, or an existing duty of the respondent. Thus, the writ does not lie to create or to establish a legal right, but to enforce one that is already established. The writ cannot be granted unless it is established that there is an existing legal right of the applicant, or an existing duty of the respondent. Thus, the writ does not lie to create or to establish a legal right, but to enforce one that is already established. While dealing with a writ petition, the court must exercise discretion, taking into consideration a wide variety of circumstances, inter-alia, the facts of the case, the exigency that warrants such exercise of discretion, the consequences of grant or refusal of the writ, and the nature and extent of injury that is likely to ensue by such grant or refusal. 11. Dispute between the parties pertains to (i) interpretation of the terms and conditions of the contract of e-auction and (ii) who is responsible for non-performance/breach of contract are the disputed questions pertaining to contract, which cannot be resolved exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Learned Single Judge rightly dismissed the writ petition giving liberty to the appellant to approach the civil court. We do not find any infirmity in the order of the learned Single Judge warranting interference. 12. In the result, this LPA is dismissed. The appellant is at liberty to work out remedy before the civil court, if it so desires. If civil suit is filed by the appellant, the period spent in filing writ petition and LPA may be taken into consideration.