ORDER : I.A. No. 2814 of 2020 I.A. No. 4967 of 2020 I.A. No. 2866 of 2019 Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. I.A. No. 2814 of 2020 has been filed for condonation of delay of 406 days, I.A. No. 4967 of 2020 has been filed for condonation of delay of 368 days and I.A. No. 2866 of 2019 has been filed for condonation of delay of 398 days, in filing the aforesaid appeals. 3. No counter affidavits have been filed by respondents to the respective interlocutory application. 4. In view of the reasons stated in the respective interlocutory applications, the delay in filing the aforesaid appeals is condoned. 5. Consequently, I.A. No.2814 of 2020, I.A. No.4967 of 2020 and I.A. No.2866 of 2019 are allowed. L.P.A. No. 248 of 2019 With L.P.A. No. 249 of 2019 With L.P.A. No. 251 of 2019 6. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 7. These intra-court appeals since arising out of same contract and as such, it has been submitted by the learned counsel for the parties that these intra-court appeals may be decided by a common order. 8. These appeals have been filed under Clause-10 of Letters Patent directed against the orders dated 25.06.2018, 02.08.2018 and 03.07.2018 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.(C) No.3514 of 2009, W.P.(C) No.3947 of 2009 and W.P.(C) No.3743 of 2009 respectively, whereby and whereunder, the learned Single Judge, while dismissing the writ petitions has refused to pass any positive direction to the respondents to revise the estimate of the work relating to Improvement of Road, Quality Programme of National Highway No.33 between Km. 235 to 237 [In W.P.(C) No.3514 of 2009], Improvement of Road, Quality Programme of National Highway No.33 between Km. 319 to 329 and from Km. 333 to 333.75 Kms. [In W.P.(C) No.3947 of 2009] and Improvement of Road, Quality Programme of National Highway No.6 between Km. 184 (portion), 190 to 197 and 205, 206 (portion) [In W.P.(C) No.3743 of 2009] and pay the revised rate of bitumen as promised to them by the respondent no.3, Secretary, Road Construction Department in view of the fact that there had been an unprecedented hike in the price of bitumen subsequent to the date of applying for the tender and execution of the work. 9. 9. The brief facts of the case as per the pleading made in the writ petitions are required to be enumerated which reads hereunder as:- The respondent authority has issued tender notice for construction of the five roads, out of which four roads were of National Highway No.33 and one road of National Highway No.6. In W.P.(C) No.3514 of 2009, the work has been allotted in favour of the writ petitioner so far as it relates Kilometer 235 to 237 of National Highway No.33 vide job no.033/JHR/2007-142, for which, the work order was issued on 02.01.2008. In W.P.(C) No.3947 of 2009, the work has been allotted in favour of the writ petitioner so far as it relates Kilometer 319 to 329 and from Km 333 to 333.75 Kms of National Highway No.33, for which, the work order was issued on 05.01.2008. In W.P.(C) No.3743 of 2009, the work has been allotted in favour of the writ petitioner so far as it relates Kilometer 184 (portion), 190 to 197 and 205, 206 (portion) of National Highway No.6, for which, the work order was issued on 05.01.2008. It is the case of the writ petitioner that at the time of preparation of estimate of work, the price of bitumen to be used for the work was around Rs.24,000/-per metric tonne but by the time, the work order was issued, the price of the bitumen had gone up to Rs.33,500/-per metric tonne. The writ petitioner, in consequence of the hike in price of the bitumen, has made correspondence before the concerned competent authority by taking aid of letters issued by the Executive Engineer and addressed to the Superintending Engineer by showing his reluctance in executing the agreement at the earlier rate of bitumen but he was assured by the respondent authority that the price of bitumen will be paid to the writ petitioner, if the enhanced rate is approved by the higher authority. The writ petitioner, entered into the agreement upon the assurance of the State authority but the enhanced rate of bitumen was not included in the agreement. 10. The writ petitioner, entered into the agreement upon the assurance of the State authority but the enhanced rate of bitumen was not included in the agreement. 10. The writ petitioner, after conclusion of the work, has demanded his claim on the basis of the enhanced rate of bitumen but the same has not been accepted by the State authority, failing which, the writ petitions have been filed by the writ petitioner praying therein for the following direction:- “For issuance of directions upon the respondents directing them to revise the estimate of the work relating to Improvement of Road, Quality Programme of National Highway No.33 between Km 235 to 237 [In W.P.(C) No.3514 of 2009], Improvement of Road, Quality Programme of National Highway No.33, between Km 319 to 329 and from Km 333 to 333.75 Kms [In W.P.(C) No.3947 of 2009] and Improvement of Road, Quality Programme of National Highway No.6 between Km 184 (portion), 190 to 197 and 205, 206 (portion)[in W.P.(C) No.3743 of 2009] and pay the revised rate of bitumen as promised to them by the respondent no.3 in view of the fact that there had been unprecedented hike in the price of bitumen subsequent to the date of applying for the tender and execution of the work” 11. The State respondent has filed an affidavit stating inter-alia that the revised estimate for incorporating price rise of bitumen was sent to the Ministry of Shipping, Road, Transport & Highway, Government of India, New Delhi for approval but since the same was returned un-approved stating that the difference of cost of bitumen due to price rise is not payable to the Contractor, as such, the work cannot be allowed. The respondent-Union of India has filed an affidavit stating inter-alia therein that price rise of bitumen was submitted by the State which was returned unapproved as there was no such provision in the contract clause. 12. Learned Single Judge after considering the stand inter-alia of the respondents, has refused to pass positive direction as per the reliefs sought for in the writ petitions. 13. Mr. 12. Learned Single Judge after considering the stand inter-alia of the respondents, has refused to pass positive direction as per the reliefs sought for in the writ petitions. 13. Mr. Shashi Bhushan Singh, learned counsel appearing for the appellant-writ petitioner, in all these appeals, has submitted that the writ petitioner has performed the work on the assurance of the concerned Executive Engineer but after conclusion of the work, the concerned respondents have not complied with the assurance for disbursement of the amount on the basis of the enhanced rate of bitumen and as such, the writ petitioner now is in heavy financial loss and on the basis of the aforesaid factual aspects, the writ petitioner has invoked the jurisdiction conferred to this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for seeking direction upon the respondents to disburse the claim of the writ petitioner on the basis of the enhanced rate of bitumen as per the assurance furnished by the concerned Executive Engineer. According to the learned counsel, the fact about assurance furnished by the concerned Executive Engineer, the party to the agreement, has not properly been appreciated by the learned Single Judge, therefore, the instant appeals. 14. Per contra, Mr. Rahul Saboo, learned SC-I appearing for the respondent-State has submitted by defending the order passed by the learned Single Judge by taking the plea that since the entire issue involved herein is on the money claim that too was disputed by the State authority by taking into consideration the terms and conditions of the contract and considering that aspect of the matter, the learned Single Judge has refused to pass a positive direction in exercise of power conferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by issuing prerogative writ. He submits that it is settled position of Law that in a money claim arises out of contract which is in dispute, there cannot be any direction by the writ Court sitting under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and considering the aforesaid settled legal position if the learned Single Judge has refused to pass any positive direction in favour of the writ petitioner, the same cannot be said to suffer from error. 15. 15. In response to the same, learned counsel appearing for the appellant-writ petitioner has submitted that even accepting the fact about not exercising the power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, then the learned Single Judge ought not to have dismissed the writ petitions rather granted liberty to the writ petitioner to approach before the appropriate Forum available to the writ petitioner for redressal of grievance but having not done so, a serious irregularities have been committed by the learned Single Judge and by dismissing the writ petitions on merit, the writ petitioner has left with no option and become remediless. 16. Mr. Rahul Sabool, learned SC-I appearing for the State-respondent submits that part of the order, whereby and whereunder, the writ petitions have been dismissed on merit instead of granting liberty to the writ petitioner to approach before the appropriate Forum for redressal of grievance involved in these appeals and therefore, he in all fairness submits that the order passed by the learned Single Judge may be modified by granting liberty to the writ petitioner to approach before the appropriate Forum for redressal of grievance. It has further been argued by the learned counsel for the State respondent that matter pertains to commercial disputes, therefore, it is not proper for this Court to exercise the extraordinary jurisdiction. 17. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant-writ petitioner upon such submission of the learned State Counsel, has agreed with the same and has submitted that the appropriate order may be passed. 18. This Court after having heard the learned counsel for the parties and in considering the consensus of the learned counsel for the parties, deems it fit and proper to dispose of these three appeals with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties i.e., the appellant-writ petitioner, respondent-State and respondent-Union of India. 19. This Court is also of the view that if the learned Single Judge has come to conclusion of not issuing prerogative writ, in that circumstances, the writ petitions ought not to have been dismissed on merit rather the writ petitioner ought to have provided liberty for redressal of grievance for approaching before the appropriate Forum. 19. This Court is also of the view that if the learned Single Judge has come to conclusion of not issuing prerogative writ, in that circumstances, the writ petitions ought not to have been dismissed on merit rather the writ petitioner ought to have provided liberty for redressal of grievance for approaching before the appropriate Forum. Having not done so, the part of the order, whereby and whereunder, the writ petitions have been dismissed, according to our considered view, suffers from material error as, if the order would be allowed to remain, the writ petitioner would become remediless and further, in our considered view, there was no requirement for the learned Single Judge to go into the merit of the issue and decide the issue as the same is required to be raised before the appropriate Forum available in Law for deciding such type of commercial disputes. 20. Therefore, the part of the order, whereby and whereunder, the writ petitions have been dismissed on merit is modified to the extent by granting liberty to the writ petitioner to approach before the concerned Forum which will decide the issue without being prejudiced by the order passed by the learned Single Judge as expeditiously as possible considering it to be a commercial dispute. 21. In view thereof, the instant appeals stand disposed of with the aforesaid modification/direction.