JUDGMENT : 1. The present writ petition has been filed for quashing memo No. 873 dated 19.09.2018 (Annexure-9 to the writ petition) whereby the Secretary, Department of Transport, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi has directed the Oil Companies to ensure installation of Pollution Under Control (PUC) centres in the petroleum retail outlets situated in the urban area within a period of one month from the date of issuance of the said letter. Further prayer has been made for quashing letter No. RT-11021/47/2014-MVL dated 29.08.2017 (Annexure-2 to the writ petition) whereby the Secretary, Ministry of Road Transport and Highways, Government of India, New Delhi has issued an advisory to the Principal Secretaries, Transport Departments of different States/UT administrations including the State of Jharkhand for installation of the PUC centres in the respective States/UT administrations. The petitioner has also prayed for quashing the order as contained in memo No. 294 dated 15.09.2017 (Annexure-4 to the writ petition) whereby the Principal Secretary-cum-Transport Commissioner, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi has directed all the District Transport Officers to ensure installation of the PUC centres in the respective districts by 30.09.2017, non-compliance of which would lead to cancellation of the trade licenses of the petroleum retail outlet dealers. 2. The factual background of the case, as stated in the writ petition, is that the petitioner No.1 is a petroleum retail outlet operator in the State of Jharkhand and the petitioner No.2 is an association which represents all the petroleum retail outlet dealers in the State of Jharkhand. The Hon’ble Supreme Court vide order dated 10.08.2017 passed in the case of M. C. Mehta Vs. Union of India & Ors. [W.P.(C) No. 13029/1985] proposed to follow the chart submitted by the Ministry of Road Transport and Highways, Government India wherein it was stated that an advisory would be issued to all the State Transport Departments throughout the country for mandating the PUC centres at every fuel station. In terms with the said direction of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the Ministry of Road Transport and Highways, Government of India issued letter No. RT-11021/47/2014-MVL dated 29.08.2017 to all the State Governments and UT administrations advising them to get the PUC centres having approved test equipments installed at every petroleum retail outlets across the country by 30.09.2017. In terms with the said direction of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the Ministry of Road Transport and Highways, Government of India issued letter No. RT-11021/47/2014-MVL dated 29.08.2017 to all the State Governments and UT administrations advising them to get the PUC centres having approved test equipments installed at every petroleum retail outlets across the country by 30.09.2017. Thereafter, a meeting was convened by the Principal Secretary, Department of Transport, Government of Jharkhand with all the Oil Companies at Ranchi wherein their representatives were directed to ensure installation of the PUC centres at all petroleum retail outlets by 30.09.2017. Thereafter, the Deputy Commissioners/District Transport Officers of different districts called meeting with the petroleum retail outlet dealers and conveyed the order of the Principal Secretary, Department of Transport, Government of Jharkhand to complete the process of installation of the PUC centres latest by 30.09.2017. Meanwhile, the Principal Secretary-cum-Transport Commissioner, Government of Jharkhand issued an order as contained in memo No. 294 dated 15.09.2017 directing all the District Transport Officers in the State of Jharkhand to ensure installation of the PUC centres at all the petroleum retail outlets by 30.09.2017, failing which the steps would be taken for cancellation/suspension of the trade licenses of the petroleum retail outlet dealers. Thereafter, the members of the Jharkhand Petroleum Dealers Association submitted their representation on 15.09.2017 to the Chief Secretary, Department of Transport, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi putting their difficulties in installation of the PUC centres at the petroleum retail outlets and requested that the PUC centres should be installed in a phase wise manner, as it was impossible to complete the entire process within a period of 15 days particularly in view of the fact that all the offices would remain closed due to ensuing festive season. Subsequently, the petitioners and other petroleum retail outlet dealers approached the Hon’ble Supreme Court by fling W.P.(C) No. 917/2017 challenging the letter No. RT-11021/47/2014-MVL dated 29.08.2017 issued by the Secretary, Ministry of Road Transport and Highways, Government of India, New Delhi as well as the order dated 15.09.2017 issued by the Principal Secretary-cum-Transport Commissioner, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi. Subsequently, the petitioners and other petroleum retail outlet dealers approached the Hon’ble Supreme Court by fling W.P.(C) No. 917/2017 challenging the letter No. RT-11021/47/2014-MVL dated 29.08.2017 issued by the Secretary, Ministry of Road Transport and Highways, Government of India, New Delhi as well as the order dated 15.09.2017 issued by the Principal Secretary-cum-Transport Commissioner, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi. The said writ petition was disposed of by the Hon’ble Supreme Court vide order dated 22.09.2017 observing inter alia that the representation preferred by the Petroleum Dealers Association before the Chief Secretary, Department of Transport, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi will be duly considered in accordance with law and thus no order is required to be passed in the said case. Thereafter, the petitioner No.2 approached the Principal Secretary-cum-Transport Commissioner, Department of Transport, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi on 28.09.2017, who vide order dated 07.11.2017, directed the representatives of the Oil Companies to ensure installation of the PUC centres at different petroleum retail outlets on their own or to ask the petroleum retail outlet dealers to install the same either themselves or through any third party with mutual co-operation. Thereafter, two of the Oil Companies, namely, Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. and Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. asked the petitioners to install the PUC centres at their respective petroleum retail outlets by 30.10.2018. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petroleum retail outlets operate under the purview of the licensing norms of the Explosive and Safety Organization (PESO), Department of Petroleum and no construction/change to any effect within the licensed premises can be carried out without prior approval and amendment in the drawing by the competent authority. The explosive licenses use to be in the name of the Oil Companies and it is the Oil Companies who have to obtain the explosive license, subject to availability of the space. Besides obtaining the explosive approval, the license from the Transport Department of the respective States is also required to be obtained. It is further submitted that on getting all approvals and licenses, substantial time and effort would be consumed in making arrangement of required fund and also to create proper infrastructure for installation and functioning of the PUC machines. The respondent authorities vide impugned letters/orders have already threatened the petitioners that in case of non-compliance of the same, their trade licenses shall be cancelled. The respondent authorities vide impugned letters/orders have already threatened the petitioners that in case of non-compliance of the same, their trade licenses shall be cancelled. It is also submitted that at present the petitioners are not under obligation as per the agreement executed between them and the Oil Companies to install the PUC centres at the respective petroleum retail outlets, which otherwise would lead to huge financial liability upon them. It is the primary obligation of the Central/State Government to ensure that the environment is protected and the pollution should be curbed. Moreover, the Government cannot compel the petitioners to carry on such business by making huge investment detrimental to their financial capacity. It is further submitted that few PUC centres are already running in various cities in the State of Jharkhand and it has been noticed that most of them are incurring loss as they get very few vehicles on daily basis due to which they are not even in a position to meet their operating expenses and the liability for paying salary to the staff. 4. Per-contra, learned counsel for the State of Jharkhand submits that the impugned directions have been issued in compliance of the order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court passed in the case of M. C. Mehta (Supra) and also in conformity with the advisory issued by the Ministry of Road Transport and Highways, Government of India and as such the same do not warrant any interference in the writ jurisdiction of this Court. It is further submitted that the present dispute is purely a private one between the petitioners and the Oil Companies which is not amenable to judicial review. The Government of Jharkhand has no concern with the contractual obligation between the Oil Companies and the petroleum retail outlet dealers, rather its concern is to comply the order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court which is in the interest of the public at large. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record. On perusal of the order dated 10.08.2017 passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of M. C. Mehta (Supra), it appears that the Ministry of Road Transport and Highways, Government of India submitted a report as well as its response by way of an affidavit dated 01.08.2017. In the said affidavit, the Ministry brought a chart of the recommendations of the EPCA on record. In the said affidavit, the Ministry brought a chart of the recommendations of the EPCA on record. The Hon’ble Supreme Court decided to follow the said chart. The directions as contained in Clause (iii) & relevant part of Clause (iv) of the said chart read as under: “(iii) The learned Solicitor General says that an advisory will be issued to all the State Transport Departments for mandating PUC centres at every fuel station. (iv) ……….. In the first stage, the needful will be done within a month in so far as the NCR region is concerned and thereafter for the rest of the country.” 6. As the Hon’ble Apex Court gave nod to the decision of the Central Government to issue advisory to the State Transport Departments for mandating PUC centres at every fuel station and the same was incorporated in the order dated 10.08.2017, the Ministry of Road Transport and Highways, Government of India wrote to the State of Jharkhand to comply the said direction of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and therefore the impugned directions were issued. The Principal Secretary, Department of Transport, Government of Jharkhand while disposing of the representation of the petitioners on 07.11.2017, in fact, did not issue any direction to the Jharkhand Petroleum Dealers Association, rather the representatives of the Oil Companies were directed either to get the PUC centres installed at all the petroleum retail outlets at their own level or to ask the petroleum retail outlet dealers to install the same themselves or to cooperate in getting those installed through third party. It was however clarified in the said order that if the order of the Hon’ble Apex Court is not complied, the same would be treated as the contempt of Court. Thereafter, vide memo No. 873 dated 19.09.2018, the Secretary, Department of Transport, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi directed the Oil Companies to take appropriate action for installing the PUC centres at all the fuel stations situated in the urban area granting them one month’s time by way of last opportunity and to submit the action taken report. However, after issuance of the letter dated 19.09.2018, few Oil Companies including the HPCL directed their retail outlet dealers to install the PUC centres at the fuel stations. It would thus emerge that the actual dispute of the petitioners is with the Oil Companies. 7. However, after issuance of the letter dated 19.09.2018, few Oil Companies including the HPCL directed their retail outlet dealers to install the PUC centres at the fuel stations. It would thus emerge that the actual dispute of the petitioners is with the Oil Companies. 7. In the catena of judgments, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that the contractual and commercial obligations are enforceable only by ordinary action and not through judicial review. Learned counsel for the petitioners has posed several difficulties in starting the PUC centres at the fuel stations. It has been submitted that the petroleum retail outlet dealers shall have to make huge investments in starting the PUC centres, though they will not derive any benefit out of the same as few PUC centres already functioning in various cities of the State are running in loss. The said argument of learned counsel for the petitioners seeking remedy under the public law, cannot be accepted. This Court, under the writ jurisdiction is primarily concerned with the issue as to whether the direction of the State-respondents are arbitrary, unreasonable and illegal. 8. In the factual context of the present case, it appears that the impugned directions have been issued pursuant to the advisory of the Ministry of Road Transport and Highways, Government of India in compliance of the order dated 10.08.2017 passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the Case of M. C. Mehta (Supra). Moreover, vide order dated 07.11.2017, the Principal Secretary, Department of Transport, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi has not issued any direction to the petroleum retail outlet dealers to comply the order of the Hon’ble Apex Court, rather the Oil Companies have been directed to ensure that the PUC centres are established at all the fuel stations without any further delay. In fact, it is only the Oil Companies who opted to direct their retail outlet dealers to start the PUC centres at their petroleum retail outlets. The said direction of the Oil Companies to their retail outlet dealers is to be governed by their respective mutual agreements. Thus, the petitioners’ right has not been infringed by the impugned orders of the Government of Jharkhand so as to seek public law remedy. 9. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of K. K. Saksena Vs. International Commission on Irrigation & Drainage & Ors., reported in (2015) 4 SCC 670 , has held as under:- “43. Thus, the petitioners’ right has not been infringed by the impugned orders of the Government of Jharkhand so as to seek public law remedy. 9. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of K. K. Saksena Vs. International Commission on Irrigation & Drainage & Ors., reported in (2015) 4 SCC 670 , has held as under:- “43. What follows from a minute and careful reading of the aforesaid judgments of this Court is that if a person or authority is “State” within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution, admittedly a writ petition under Article 226 would lie against such a person or body. However, we may add that even in such cases writ would not lie to enforce private law rights. There are a catena of judgments on this aspect and it is not necessary to refer to those judgments as that is the basic principle of judicial review of an action under the administrative law. The reason is obvious. A private law is that part of a legal system which is a part of common law that involves relationships between individuals, such as law of contract or torts. Therefore, even if writ petition would be maintainable against an authority, which is “State” under Article 12 of the Constitution, before issuing any writ, particularly writ of mandamus, the Court has to satisfy that action of such an authority, which is challenged, is in the domain of public law as distinguished from private law. 44. Within a couple of years of the framing of the Constitution, this Court remarked in Election Commission of India v. Saka Venkata Rao that administrative law in India has been shaped in the English mould. Power to issue writ or any order of direction for “any other purpose” has been held to be included in Article 226 of the Constitution with a view apparently to place all the High Courts in this country in somewhat the same position as the Court of the King’s Bench in England. It is for this reason ordinary “private law remedies” are not enforceable through extraordinary writ jurisdiction, even though brought against public authorities (see Administrative Law, 8th Edn., H.W.R. Wade and C.F. Forsyth, p. 656). In a number of decisions, this Court has held that contractual and commercial obligations are enforceable only by ordinary action and not by judicial review.” 10. It is for this reason ordinary “private law remedies” are not enforceable through extraordinary writ jurisdiction, even though brought against public authorities (see Administrative Law, 8th Edn., H.W.R. Wade and C.F. Forsyth, p. 656). In a number of decisions, this Court has held that contractual and commercial obligations are enforceable only by ordinary action and not by judicial review.” 10. On perusal of the aforesaid judgment, it would appear that the ordinary “private law remedies” are not enforceable through extraordinary writ jurisdiction even though brought against public authorities and the affected party should take recourse of the remedy provided under private law. Moreover, the impugned letters/orders have been issued by the respondent authorities in the interest of public at large. 11. In view of the discussions made herein above, I see no reason to entertain the present writ petition and the same is, accordingly, dismissed. 12. Consequently, I.A. No. 10581/2018 also stands disposed of.