JUDGMENT : Heard learned counsel for the appellants and learned counsel for the respondents. 2. The appellants writ petitioners are aggrieved by the impugned order dated 4.12.2018, passed by the Hon’ble Singe Judge, in W.P.(C) No. 5670 of 2018, dismissing the writ application, holding that it was a contractual dispute between the petitioners and the oil companies, for which the ordinary private law remedies were there, and it could not be resolved through extraordinary writ jurisdiction, as the ordinary 'private law remedies' are not enforceable through extraordinary writ jurisdiction, even though brought against public authorities. 3. The writ petitioners approached this Court, by filing the aforesaid writ application, challenging the order contained in Memo No. 873 dated 19.9.2018, issued by the Secretary, Department of Transport, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi, directing the Oil Companies to ensure installation of Pollution Under Control (PUC) centres in the petroleum retail outlets, situated in the urban area within the State, within a period of one month from the date of issuance of the said letter. Further prayer was to quash the order dated 29.8.2017, issued by the Secretary, Ministry of Road Transport and Highways, Government of India, whereby an advisory was issued to the Principal Secretaries, Transport Departments of different States / UT administrations, including the State of Jharkhand, for installation of the PUC Centres in the petroleum retail outlets. The petitioners had also prayed for quashing the order dated 15.9.2017, 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 their respective districts by 30.9.2017, non-compliance of which would lead to cancellation of the trade licenses of the petroleum retail outlet dealers. 4. All the aforesaid directions / advisories were issued pursuant to the order dated 10.8.2017 of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, passed in W.P. (Civil) No. 13029 of 1985, wherein upon considering the response from the Ministry of Road Transport and Highways, Government of India, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India had issued the directions, inter alia as follows:- Response of the Ministry Direction (iii) An advisory is also proposed be issued to the State Transport Departments for mandating PUC Centres at each fuel station. (iii) The learned Solicitor General says that an advisory will be issued to all the State Transport Departments all over the country for mandating PUC centres at every fuel station. (iii) The learned Solicitor General says that an advisory will be issued to all the State Transport Departments all over the country for mandating PUC centres at every fuel station. (iv) The learned Solicitor General says that all empanelled and authorized PUC Centres having Type Approved Machines will be uploaded on the website of the Ministry of Road, Transport and Highways with their names, addresses and authorized personnel. 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. 5. Learned counsel for the appellants writ petitioners has submitted before us that no direction was issued by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, mandating the petroleum retail outlets to install the PUC at their centres at their own costs, rather it was for the State Transport Departments to get the PUC centres installed in every fuel stations in the State, either itself or through some agencies. Learned counsel has submitted that in the garb of such direction, passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, what has really been done, is that all the petroleum retail outlets have been directed to install the PUCs in their fuel stations at their own costs, failing which, the coercive steps have already been initiated. A letter dated 13.6.2019, as contained in Memo No. 829, issued by the District Transport Officer, Koderma, for initiating the steps for cancelling the trade license, has been brought on record, and it is submitted that similar steps are going to be initiated in the other districts as well. 6. Learned counsel has also assailed the impugned order passed by the Hon'ble Single Judge, submitting that the opening of the PUCs are being forced upon the retail fuel dealers, saddling the retail dealers with heavy expenses, with no corresponding returns. Learned counsel submitted that the Hon’ble Single Judge, failed to appreciate that the right to carry on a business also includes a right to close down a business, as held by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Excel Wear Vs. Union of India and Ors., reported in (1978) 4 SCC 224 . 7. Learned counsels for the respondents have opposed the prayer, submitting that only the direction of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in order dated 10.8.2017 passed in W.P.(Civil) No. 13029 of 1985, has been implemented by the respondents. 8. Union of India and Ors., reported in (1978) 4 SCC 224 . 7. Learned counsels for the respondents have opposed the prayer, submitting that only the direction of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in order dated 10.8.2017 passed in W.P.(Civil) No. 13029 of 1985, has been implemented by the respondents. 8. Having heard learned counsels for the parties and upon going through the record, we find that the prayer of the appellants writ petitioners necessarily mandates the clarification of the order dated 10.8.2017, passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in W.P.(Civil) No. 13029 of 1985, which was passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in order to check the alarming level of pollution in the Country. While issuing certain directions in order to check the pollution level, there was a direction also for installation of PUCs on all the fuel stations in the Country, in order to check the air pollution caused by the vehicular emissions due to burning of fuel. Neither making any clarification in the directions issued by the Hon'ble Apex Court, nor passing any such order which may come in the way of implementation of the directions issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, is within the domain of this Court. 9. The Hon’ble Single Judge has not entered into this aspect of the matter and has dismissed the writ application, holding that it was a contractual dispute between the petitioners and the oil companies, for which the ordinary private law remedies were there, and it could not be resolved through extraordinary writ jurisdiction, as the ordinary 'private law remedies' are not enforceable through extraordinary writ jurisdiction, even though brought against public authorities. 10. In the facts of this case we find that apart from the aforesaid ground, the remedy of the appellants writ petitioners, did not lie within the domain of this Court at all, as this Court cannot make any clarification / alteration / addition / subtraction in the order / direction of the Apex Court, or in its implementation by the State authorities or corporate bodies. 11. Accordingly, we do not find any merit in this appeal and the same, is hereby, dismissed. The aforesaid interlocutory application, filed for stay of any coercive action, also stands dismissed.