This writ petition is filed for a mandamus to declare the action of the respondents in not permitting the petitioner to utilize the 30 feet approach road on the Eastern side of the property leased out to him by the respondents under "Build, Operate and Transfer Scheme" as illegal and arbitrary.

2. The petitioner entered into a "Development, Construction, Operation and Management Agreement" (for short "the Agreement") on 21.6.2006 with the respondent-Corporation, under which an extent of 2139 square meters of land belonging to respondent No.1 and situated at the Bus Station, Bapatla, was handed over to the petitioner for the purpose of construction of petrol outlet and restaurant. Accordingly, the petitioner has constructed the petrol outlet and a building, which is being used as a hotel and convention centre. The petitioner felt aggrieved by the action of the respondents in seeking to prevent him from using the 30 feet road running from South to North abutting the hotel and the convention centre on the Eastern side. According to the petitioner, the 30 feet (10 meters) wide approach road is meant for catering to the needs of the site developed by the petitioner as well as another site, which is situated abutting the said site on the North, described as North-West block in the sketch enclosed to the agreement.

3. It is the plea of the respondents, as reflected from their counter-affidavit, that the 30 feet (10 meter) wide approach road is meant for providing access to the North-West block as indicated in the sketch as it has no other access; and that the petitioner has access to the main road leading to Chirala on the Southern side and also another road on the Western side.

4. Sri P.S. Rajasekhar. learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, strenuously contended that the Agreement defined the site as 2139 square meters of land at bus station, Bapatla (South- West Block) as shown in the schedule. He further submitted that the schedule has marked the road on the Eastern side of the demised premises with the description "10 meters wide approach". According to the learned Counsel, the schedule has included the 10 meter wide approach road, which shall be deemed to form part of the site as defined in the Agreement. The learned Counsel further submitted that the definition of 'project' in Clause 2.1 of the Agreement included the design, construction and maintenance of buildings, support structures, roads, approaches or facilities and that, therefore, the approach shown in the schedule forms part of the project. As noted earlier, it is the pleaded case of the respondents that this 10 meter wide road is intended to cater to the need of the North West Block as approach to it and that the same is not meant as approach to the petitioner.

5. The petitioner's right stems from a concluded contract. Necessarily, therefore, the petitioner's right is dependant on the interpretation of the terms of the contract. The law is well settled that ordinarily a dispute arising under a non-statutory contract is not entertained by this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of Constitution of India. Unless it is demonstrated that the action of the State or its instrumentalities, who are parties to a non-statutory contract, is so patently arbitrary or the same is in blatant violation of the clauses of the Agreement, this Court seldom interferes with the disputes arising under such contracts. (See the decisions of the Supreme Court in ABL International Ltd., v. Export Credit Guarantee Corporation of India Ltd, (2004) 3 SCC 553).

6. In Kerala State Electricity Board v. Kurien E. Kalathil, (2000) 6 SCC 293, the Supreme Court held that the interpretation and implementation of a clause in a contract cannot be the subject-matter of a writ petition; and that if a term of a contract is violated, ordinarily the remedy is not the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

7. In State of Gujarat v. Meghji Pethraj Shah Charitable