JUDGMENT : The present writ petition was initially filed for issuance of direction upon the respondent authorities to immediately release the bonus amount accrued in favour of the petitioner in terms with Clause 50.1 of the Conditions of Contract of Standard Bidding Document (SBD) (Section-3) with respect to the work of “widening & strengthening of Potka-Kudada Road (0.00 k.m. to 11.50 k.m.)” allotted to it pursuant to Agreement No. 01SBD/2014-2015 dated 21.05.2014 owing to the fact that it has completed the said work six months prior to the assigned date. 2. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondent sworn by the Executive Engineer, Road Construction Department, Road Division, Jamshedpur (the respondent no. 6) annexing letter no. 1370 dated 01.09.2021 (Annexure-W to the said counter affidavit) issued by the Chief Engineer (Communication), Road Construction Department, Ranchi (the respondent no. 4) to the respondent no. 6 informing that since the petitioner has not completed the items in full as per the agreement, it does not fulfil the requirement for payment of bonus in terms with Clause-50.1 of the Conditions of Contract of SBD (Section-3). 3. Subsequently, the petitioner by filing I.A. No. 6619 of 2021 has sought challenge to letter no. 1370 dated 01.09.2021 issued by the respondent no. 4. 4. Pursuant to filing of the counter affidavit on behalf of the respondents, a rejoinder affidavit to the same has also been filed on behalf of the petitioner. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the content of the writ petition. 6. The petitioner by filing the present writ petition has primarily claimed bonus in terms with Clause-50.1 of the of the Conditions of Contract of SBD (Section-3) on the ground that the work in question has been completed six months prior to the assigned date and a completition certificate to that effect has also been issued to it on 26.09.2020 whereas the respondents in their counter affidavit have disputed the said claim of the petitioner on the ground that it has not completed the items in full as per the agreement and hence, it does not fulfil the requirement for payment of bonus in terms with Clause-50.1 of the of the Conditions of Contract of SBD. Therefore, the bonus claimed by the petitioner is not admissible in terms with the aforesaid clause. 7. In the case of Joshi Technologies International Inc. Vs. Therefore, the bonus claimed by the petitioner is not admissible in terms with the aforesaid clause. 7. In the case of Joshi Technologies International Inc. Vs. Union of India and others reported in (2015) 7 SCC 728 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under:- “69. The position thus summarised in the aforesaid principles has to be understood in the context of discussion that preceded which we have pointed out above. As per this, no doubt, there is no absolute bar to the maintainability of the writ petition even in contractual matters or where there are disputed questions of fact or even when monetary claim is raised. At the same time, discretion lies with the High Court which under certain circumstances, it can refuse to exercise. It also follows that under the following circumstances, “normally”, the Court would not exercise such a discretion: 69.1. The Court may not examine the issue unless the action has some public law character attached to it. 69.2. Whenever a particular mode of settlement of dispute is provided in the contract, the High Court would refuse to exercise its discretion under Article 226 of the Constitution and relegate the party to the said mode of settlement, particularly when settlement of disputes is to be resorted to through the means of arbitration. 69.3. If there are very serious disputed questions of fact which are of complex nature and require oral evidence for their determination. 69.4. Money claims per se particularly arising out of contractual obligations are normally not to be entertained except in exceptional circumstances. 70. Further, the legal position which emerges from various judgments of this Court dealing with different situations/aspects relating to contracts entered into by the State/public authority with private parties, can be summarised as under: 70.1. At the stage of entering into a contract, the State acts purely in its executive capacity and is bound by the obligations of fairness. 70.2. State in its executive capacity, even in the contractual field, is under obligation to act fairly and cannot practise some discrimination. 70.3. Even in cases where question is of choice or consideration of competing claims before entering into the field of contract, facts have to be investigated and found before the question of a violation of Article 14 of the Constitution could arise. 70.3. Even in cases where question is of choice or consideration of competing claims before entering into the field of contract, facts have to be investigated and found before the question of a violation of Article 14 of the Constitution could arise. If those facts are disputed and require assessment of evidence the correctness of which can only be tested satisfactorily by taking detailed evidence, involving examination and cross-examination of witnesses, the case could not be conveniently or satisfactorily decided in proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution. In such cases the Court can direct the aggrieved party to resort to alternate remedy of civil suit, etc. 70.4. Writ jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution was not intended to facilitate avoidance of obligation voluntarily incurred. 70.5. Writ petition was not maintainable to avoid contractual obligation. Occurrence of commercial difficulty, inconvenience or hardship in performance of the conditions agreed to in the contract can provide no justification in not complying with the terms of contract which the parties had accepted with open eyes. It cannot ever be that a licensee can work out the licence if he finds it profitable to do so: and he can challenge the conditions under which he agreed to take the licence, if he finds it commercially inexpedient to conduct his business. 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. 70.7. Writ can be issued where there is executive action unsupported by law or even in respect of a corporation there is denial of equality before law or equal protection of law or if it can be shown that action of the public authorities was without giving any hearing and violation of principles of natural justice after holding that action could not have been taken without observing principles of natural justice. 70.8. If the contract between private party and the State/instrumentality and/or agency of the State is under the realm of a private law and there is no element of public law, the normal course for the aggrieved party, is to invoke the remedies provided under ordinary civil law rather than approaching the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and invoking its extraordinary jurisdiction. 70.9. 70.9. The distinction between public law and private law element in the contract with the State is getting blurred. However, it has not been totally obliterated and where the matter falls purely in private field of contract, this Court has maintained the position that writ petition is not maintainable. The dichotomy between public law and private law rights and remedies would depend on the factual matrix of each case and the distinction between the public law remedies and private law field, cannot be demarcated with precision. In fact, each case has to be examined, on its facts whether the contractual relations between the parties bear insignia of public element. Once on the facts of a particular case it is found that nature of the activity or controversy involves public law element, then the matter can be examined by the High Court in writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to see whether action of the State and/or instrumentality or agency of the State is fair, just and equitable or that relevant factors are taken into consideration and irrelevant factors have not gone into the decision-making process or that the decision is not arbitrary. 70.10. Mere reasonable or legitimate expectation of a citizen, in such a situation, may not by itself be a distinct enforceable right, but failure to consider and give due weight to it may render the decision arbitrary, and this is how the requirements of due consideration of a legitimate expectation forms part of the principle of non-arbitrariness. 70.11. The scope of judicial review in respect of disputes falling within the domain of contractual obligations may be more limited and in doubtful cases the parties may be relegated to adjudication of their rights by resort to remedies provided for adjudication of purely contractual disputes. 71. Keeping in mind the aforesaid principles and after considering the arguments of the respective parties, we are of the view that on the facts of the present case, it is not a fit case where the High Court should have exercised discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. First, the matter is in the realm of pure contract. It is not a case where any statutory contract is awarded.” 8. In the case of Moran M. Baselios Marthoma Mathews II & Others Vs. First, the matter is in the realm of pure contract. It is not a case where any statutory contract is awarded.” 8. In the case of Moran M. Baselios Marthoma Mathews II & Others Vs. State of Kerala & Others reported in (2007) 6 SCC 517 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under:- “8. A distinction, in our opinion, must be borne in mind in regard to the exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in relation to the matters providing for public law remedy vis-à-vis private law remedy. The High Court while exercising its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, no doubt, exercises a plenary power but then certain limitations in regard thereto are well accepted. Ordinarily, a writ of or in the nature of mandamus would be issued against a “State” within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India or the public authorities discharging public functions or a public utility concern or where the functions of the respondents are referable to a statute, which a fortiorari would mean that save and except for good reasons Court would not entertain a matter involving private law remedy.” 9. In the case of Kisan Sahkari Chini Mills Limited & Others Vs. Vardan Linkers & Others reported in (2008) 12 SCC 500 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under:- “18. Ordinarily, the remedy available for a party complaining of breach of contract lies for seeking damages. He will be entitled to the relief of specific performance, if the contract is capable of being specifically enforced in law. The remedies for a breach of contract being purely in the realm of contract are dealt with by civil courts. The public law remedy, by way of a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is not available to seek damages for breach of contract or specific performance of contract. However, where the contractual dispute has a public law element, the power of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India may be invoked.” 10. Thus, public law remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not available for breach of contractual obligations and proper recourse with the affected party is to invoke civil remedy. However, where the contractual dispute has a public law element, the power of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India may be invoked.” 10. Thus, public law remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not available for breach of contractual obligations and proper recourse with the affected party is to invoke civil remedy. The claim and the counter claim of the parties based on facts cannot be adjudicated under extraordinary writ jurisdiction of this Court. Content of the present writ petition itself suggests that the petitioner has raised purely a contractual claim which, in the opinion of this Court, does not involve public law element. There is purely a private dispute between the parties arising out of contract in question. Moreover, claim of the petitioner is not an admitted one, rather the same has been disputed by the respondents and thus the said disputed claim of the petitioner cannot be adjudicated under writ jurisdiction. The petitioner is, however, at liberty to take alternative recourse(s) as available under law with respect to its claim for bonus as per the agreement executed between the parties. 11. The writ petition is dismissed as not maintainable with aforesaid liberty. 12. I.A. No. 6619 of 2021 also stands disposed of accordingly.