ORDER : 1. The present writ petition has been filed for quashing memo no. 1972 dated 21.10.2016 issued by the respondent no. 3 - the Executive Engineer, Rural Works Department, Works Division, Godda, whereby the agreement executed between the petitioner and the respondent no. 3 being agreement no. 05F2/2011-12 dated 11.10.2011 for construction of road from the village - Marpa to Khuntahari has been cancelled with a direction to deposit a penalty of Rs. 39,21,991/-. 2. The factual background of the case as stated in the writ petition is that the respondent no. 3 entered an agreement with the petitioner and allotted the work for construction of road from Village - Marpa to Khuntahari Rajauna under R.E.O vide Agreement No. 05F2 of 2011-12 and directed the petitioner to start the work by 11.10.2011. The case of the petitioner is that the respondent no. 4 - the Executive Engineer, Irrigation Division, Godda Camp, Mahagama vide memo no. 739 dated 03.10.2012 addressed to the respondent no. 3 intimated that the work is being done without any “no objection certificate” from the Irrigation Division and further asked to stop the construction work with immediate effect and as such, the petitioner stopped the work. Thereafter, the petitioner wrote letter to the respondent no. 3 vide letter dated 05.10.2012 to do further needful. Subsequently, the petitioner preferred writ petition being W.P.(C) No. 289 of 2014 which was withdrawn on 09.07.2014. Thereafter, though the security deposit of the petitioner was released, but other dues have not yet been paid to him. The petitioner again filed writ petition being W.P.(C) No. 5083 of 2014 which was also dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 02.08.2016 with a liberty to the petitioner to pursue his representation before the concerned respondents in relation to his grievance. However, the respondent no. 3 issued letter contained in memo no. 1972 dated 21.10.2016 directing the petitioner to deposit Rs. 39,21,991.00 within a month, failing which legal action would be initiated against him. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that due to non-issuance of “no objection certificate” from the respondent no. 4, he was unable to execute construction work for which his admissible bill has been withheld by the respondent no. 3 without any fault on his part. It is further submitted that the action of the respondent no. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that due to non-issuance of “no objection certificate” from the respondent no. 4, he was unable to execute construction work for which his admissible bill has been withheld by the respondent no. 3 without any fault on his part. It is further submitted that the action of the respondent no. 3 by executing agreement with the petitioner for construction of road without taking “no objection certificate” from the Irrigation Division is malicious which caused huge financial loss to the petitioner. It is also submitted that the action of the respondents in directing the petitioner to deposit the penalty amount is arbitrary, malafide and illegal, as the work could not be completed due to lapses on the part of the respondents themselves. 4. The learned counsel for the respondents submits that actually the respondent no. 4 vide letter no. 739 dated 03.10.2012 communicated the respondent no. 3 that the petitioner was asked to stop the construction work in Chain No. 526 only where there was canal embankment and was further asked to obtain “no objection certificate” to continue with the said work in the concerned area, but the petitioner abandoned the work completely by December, 2013, whereas the canal embankment area covered only 20% of the entire stretch. It is further submitted that the petitioner was granted “no objection certificate” on 05.11.2015 and was also asked vide memo no. 1598 dated 03.08.2016 to resume the work within a week. It is also submitted that in spite of repeated reminders, the petitioner did not resume the work and as such, the impugned letter contained in memo no. 1972 dated 21.10.2016 has been issued directing the petitioner to deposit Rs. 39,21,991.00 by way of penalty. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record. The case of the petitioner is that he was awarded work for construction of road from village Marpa to Khuntahari in the District- Godda vide Agreement No. 05F2 of 2011-12, but he could not complete the work in absence of “no objection certificate” from the Irrigation Division and without any lapse on his part, the impugned letter contained in memo no. 1972 dated 21.10.2016 has been issued cancelling the work with a further direction to the petitioner to deposit a sum of Rs. 39,21,991/- as penalty. 1972 dated 21.10.2016 has been issued cancelling the work with a further direction to the petitioner to deposit a sum of Rs. 39,21,991/- as penalty. On the contrary, the stand of the respondents is that only 20% of the total stretch was within the jurisdiction of the Irrigation Division, Godda Camp, Mahagama, Godda for which the petitioner was directed to stop the work in Chain No. 526. However, the petitioner stopped the entire work which was in violation of the terms and conditions of the Agreement. The respondents in support of their contention have brought on record a letter dated 03.08.2016 issued by the respondent no. 3 stating that in spite of “no objection certificate” subsequently granted to the petitioner vide letter dated 05.11.2015, the work was not commenced by him. The petitioner has not denied the said statement of the respondents by filing any rejoinder affidavit. Thus, the petitioner has not been able to show any arbitrariness on the part of the respondents so as to seek indulgence of the Writ Court to entertain the contractual dispute between the parties. Moreover, the petitioner had also preferred two writ petitions earlier for the same work, which were dismissed as withdrawn. In the present writ petition also, the petitioner has not been able to make out a prima facie case for interference of this Court. 6. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of “Joshi Technologies International Inc. Vs. Union of India” reported in (2015) 7 SCC 728 held as follows:- 70.6. Ordinarily, where a breach of contract is complained of, the party complaining of such breach may sue for specific performance of the contract, if contract is capable of being specifically performed. Otherwise, the party may sue for damages. 7. The scope of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is quite limited in contractual matters. When a contract is entered by the State or its instrumentality with a private party, the Writ Court has to see as to whether the dispute arising out of the said contract involves any public law element or the same is limited to private law remedy. When a contract is entered by the State or its instrumentality with a private party, the Writ Court has to see as to whether the dispute arising out of the said contract involves any public law element or the same is limited to private law remedy. The power of judicial review can only be exercised when the matter involves public law element and then the issue may be examined by the Writ Court to see as to whether the action of the State or its instrumentality is fair, just and equitable or the decision making process suffers from any arbitrariness. Each case has to be looked into on its own factual context to determine whether the contractual dispute involves any public law character. Normally, a Writ Court would not exercise its discretion in contractual disputes involving claim and counter claim between the parties and the factual disputes are of complex nature, requiring adducing of evidences. In such cases, the parties may seek legal remedies resorting to the forums provided for adjudication of purely contractual disputes. However, the factual context of the present case does not warrant any interference by the Writ Court. 8. The writ petition being devoid of merit is accordingly dismissed. The petitioner is, however, at liberty to take recourse of private law remedy against the action of the respondents, if so advised.