ORDER Heard the parties. The case is being taken-up from defect side. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners is directed to submit the original petition along with attested affidavits and also remove all the defects pointed out by the Registry within two weeks from today. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the General Manager, East Central Railway, Hajipur, Vaishali, is the only authority which could have extended the lease period and the orders which have been passed by the General Manager, Engineering, East Central Railway Office, Hajipur, and the Divisional Railway Manager, Sonepur Division, East Central Railway, would have no authority to pass the directions that the petitioners’ lease period is fraud and there is no extension/renewal of the lease. 4. From the perusal of the letter, dated 04.01.2022, passed by the General Manager, Engineering Office, East Central Railway, Hajipur, it is apparent that the General Manager has not accepted to continue the lease on the same terms as it was actually being paid and has directed the Divisional Railway Manager to take action as per instant Railway Board Policy and accordingly the Divisional Railway Manager has demanded the rent for the period from 2014-15 to 2023-24 from the petitioners and has also directed them to get the lease renewed. 5. The petitioners in the present writ petition has prayed to issue a mandamus to the respondents to renew the lease on mutually agreed terms as it was available in the earlier lease agreement, dated 19.11.1984, and with such modifications to ensure timely advertisement of necessary infrastructure. 6. In the light of aforesaid facts, which are on record, this Court finds that the dispute is a pure civil dispute between the Railways and the petitioners it is not required to be adjudicated upon by invoking writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Whether the terms of the lease agreement of 1984 should be continued or not is a matter which is required to be sorted out between the parties on mutual settlement and for the said purpose this Court would not have any jurisdiction to intervene between the same and the petition is wholly misconceived and is accordingly dismissed.