The jurisdiction of the Writ Court to entertain an application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for enforcing a non-statutory contract is limited to cases where the contract involves public law elements or is governed by a statute. In the absence of such elements, the aggrieved party must seek a remedy through a civil suit.

( 1 ) THIS mandamus appeal is at the instance of a writ petitioner and is directed against the order passed by the learned Single judge by which His Lordship refused t;o entertain the writ application filed by the appellant on the ground that the appropriate remedy of the appellant lay before the Civil Court.

( 2 ) THE appellant before us became the lowest bidder in a tender issued by the University of Animal and Fishery Sciences for supply of the computers and other necessary appliancces and consequently, supplied the required number of the computers and other items. According to the appellant, in spite of supply of the goods, the University authority refused to make payment of the goods supplied wthout disclosing any reason.

( 3 ) BEING dissatisfied, the writ petitioner has come up with the present mandamus appeal.

( 4 ) MR. Mukherjee, the learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant, strenuously contended before us that the learned Single Judge refused to exercise jurisdiction vested in His Lordship by holding that the appropriate remedy of the appellant lay before the Civil Court. According to Mr. Mukherjee, in this case, there was no dispute that the appellant supplied the required number of computers and other goods ordered by the University and that the respondent authority did not dispute the quality of those items supplied. In such a situation, Mr. Mukherjee contends, there was no justification of not making payment of the price for the goods delivered. Mr. Mukherjee submits that the present case being one where there is no disputed question of fact involved, the learned Single Judge ought to have entertained the writ application and granted the relief claimed herein. Mr. Mukherjee contends that the respondent Nos. 2 to 4, being the "state" within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India, were bound to act fairly and reasonably and there was no justification of refusing payment. He, therefore, prays for setting aside the order passed by the learned Single Judge and passing a direction upon the respondent Nos. 2 to 4 for immediate payment of the price of the goods. In support of his contention, Mr. Mukherjee relies upon the following decisions of the Supreme Court: (a) Mahabir Auto Stores vs. Indian Oil Corporation, 1990 (3) SCC 752; (b) ABL International Ltd. vs. Export Credit Guarantee Corporation of India ltd. , 2004 (3) SCC 553; (c) Directorate of Education vs. Educomp Datamatics Ltd. , 2004 (4) SCC 19; (d) Binny Ltd. vs. V. Sadasivam, 2005 (6) SCC 657.

( 5 ) THE learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondents, on the other hand, has opposed the aforesaid contention of Mr. Mukherjee and has contended that in the fact of the present case the learned Single Judge rightly refused to entertain the writ application for enforcement of a right arising out of a non-statutory contract. He further submits that he has definite instruction that those computers supplied by the appellant have been burnt into ashes and an enquiry is going on for finding out the reason for such accident.

( 6 ) THEREFORE, the only question that arises for determination in this mandamus appeal is whether the learned Single Judge was justified in refusing to entertain the writ application on the ground of existence of alternative remedy by way of civil suit available to the appellant.

( 7 ) AFTER hearing the learned Counsel for the parties and after going through the materials on record, we are of the opinion that in this case the learned single Judge was quite justified in refusing to entertain the writ application.

( 8 ) THE jurisdiction of the Writ Court to entertain an application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for enforcing a non-statutory contract is now well-settled. As pointed out by the Supreme Court in various decisions, in the matter of entering into a contract in exercise of executive power under Article 298 of the Constitution, the State must act reasonably a