JUDGMENT AND ORDER : DEVASHIS BARUAH, J. Heard Mr. M. K. Sarma, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner. None appears on behalf of the respondent Nos.1 & 3 on call. Mr. P. Goswami, the learned counsel appears on behalf of the respondent Nos.2 & 5 and Ms. P. Chakraborty, the learned counsel appears on behalf of the respondent No.4. 2. The instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking a direction upon the respondent No.2 to release the bills amounting to Rs.1,81,00,000/- directly to the petitioner and further to direct the respondent No.3 to give a detailed report of the pending bills to the respondent No.2. 3. The brief facts of the instant case are that the Brahmaputra Cracker and Polymer Limited (BCPL) requested the Engineering Projects India Limited (EPIL) to carry out certain project works in respect to the Gas Cracker Project of BCPL at Lapetkata. EPIL thereupon issued a Notice Inviting Tender wherein NEFFS India Private Limited (for short ‘NEFFS’) was granted a contract for completion of certain parts of the Lapetkata Gas Cracker Project of BCPL. 4. It is further relevant to take note of that NEFFS which is a Private Limited Company entered into a contract with the petitioner for carrying out certain works on 18.08.2010. While the petitioner was carrying out the said work, the NEFFS terminated the said contract and it is alleged that NEFFS did not release the amount of Rs.1,81,00,000/- for the work carried out by the petitioner. The petitioner thereupon initially approached NEFFS for payment and having not been received due favourable response, approached EPIL for payment of the amount of Rs.1,81,00,000/- by submitting representation. The petitioner also submitted representation to the BCPL requesting for making payment of the amount to which the petitioner is entitled to. The petitioner had come to learn that the EPIL owes certain amount of money to NEFFS and out of the said amount, the petitioner should be paid its dues to the tune of Rs.1,81,00,000/-. However, neither BCPL nor EPIL took steps for releasing the said amount of Rs.1,81,00,000/- to the petitioner for which the present writ petition. 5. The record reveals that the respondent No.4, i.e. NEFFS through its Director filed an affidavit-in-opposition challenging the maintainability of the writ petition on the ground that the dispute involved is a purely civil dispute. However, neither BCPL nor EPIL took steps for releasing the said amount of Rs.1,81,00,000/- to the petitioner for which the present writ petition. 5. The record reveals that the respondent No.4, i.e. NEFFS through its Director filed an affidavit-in-opposition challenging the maintainability of the writ petition on the ground that the dispute involved is a purely civil dispute. It was also mentioned that the respondent No.4 has been put to great difficulty on account of non release of funds by the EPIL thereby resulting in initiation of proceedings under the SARFAESI Act, 2002. It was also mentioned that there is an arbitration proceedings going on between EPIL, BCPL and the NEFFS. 6. The respondent Nos.2 & 5 also filed an affidavit-in-opposition wherein it was contended that on account of non-performance of work by the NEFFS, the EPIL terminated the contract on 15.03.2011. It was also stated that the petitioner by way of the instant writ petition has made an effort to make EPIL liable for payment of certain unpaid and unverified bills arising out of a work order between the petitioner and NEFFS to which EPIL was never a party. In addition to that, it was also mentioned that though certain payments were made directly by EPIL to the petitioner at the request of NEFFS, but the same could not create any form of contract between the petitioner and the EPIL. 7. The record further reveals that the petitioner filed an additional affidavit bringing on record certain cheques which were being issued by EPIL to the petitioner. Reply there against was filed by the EPIL stating inter-alia that there is no contractual relationship between EPIL and the petitioner and the said payment of Rs.40 lakhs was made upon instructions of the respondent No.4, i.e. NEFFS. Another additional affidavit was filed on behalf of the respondent No.4 wherein it was mentioned that on account of the non-payment of the dues by the respondent Nos.2 & 5, the respondent No.4 was facing various proceedings before various Courts. 8. In the backdrop of the above pleadings, this Court duly heard the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the parties and the submission so made were in tune with the pleadings, and as such, this Court for the sake of brevity is not repeating the same. 9. 8. In the backdrop of the above pleadings, this Court duly heard the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the parties and the submission so made were in tune with the pleadings, and as such, this Court for the sake of brevity is not repeating the same. 9. Having heard the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the parties and having also perused the materials of record, it is apparent that the petitioner did not have any contractual relationship with EPIL. The contractual relation, if any, of the petitioner is with NEFFS. What the petitioner has tried to do by way of filing the present writ petition is on account of a purported breach of the contract by the NEFFS for non-payment of certain dues, the petitioner seeks appropriate directions upon the EPIL for payment of the said dues. 10. It is the opinion of this Court that the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution cannot be invoked to settle private dispute on the ground that one of the parties is entitled to certain dues from an authority coming within the ambit of State. In the instant case, the petitioner’s dispute is with NEFFS and the present proceedings is filed solely on the ground that EPIL allegedly owes some amount to NEFFS. It is also the unclear as to what amount the NEFFS is entitled from the EPIL. Under such circumstances, it is therefore the opinion of this Court that this Court cannot pass any writ, direction or order in terms with the relief(s)which have been sought for by the petitioner. 11. Accordingly, this Court does not find the present proceedings to be a fit proceedings for exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution for which the instant writ petition stands dismissed. 12. Before parting with the record, this Court finds it very pertinent to observe that the dismissal of the present proceedings shall not prejudice the petitioner in any civil proceedings initiated for recovery from NEFFS. Furthermore, as the petitioner had been bonafidely litigating before this Court, the period during which the instant proceedings have been pending, i.e. from 20.05.2014 till date, be excluded while computing the period of limitation.