A writ of mandamus cannot be used to enforce an obligation to make payment under a contract. Contract disputes should be resolved through civil suits.

K.P. Dandapani, J.

A common question arises in these original petitions and therefore, they are heard and disposed of together.

2. Petitioners in these original petitions are engaged in the business of transporting goods on contract basis. Petitioners had been engaged by the Ist respondent Kerala State Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd. (for short 'the Corporation') for transporting various items from various States to Kerala. According to the petitioners, they have been discharging the work to the full satisfaction of the respondent-Corporation. In view of the course that I propose to adopt in disposing of these cases, I do not think it necessary to go into the facts of each case. As facts unfolded, I find, all the petitioners are issued with show cause notices (Ext. P13 in O. P. No. 7596/90) and threatened with cancellation of the registration of the petitioners with the Corporation and debarring permanently from participating in any tender and entering into any contract with the Corporation and petitioners were given 7 days' time for filing explanation.

3. All the petitioners mainly challenge this show cause notices. However, along with this prayer of certiorari to quash the show cause notices petitioners have also pointed out that large amounts are due from the Corporation to them towards nonpayment of the fulfillment of contract. They, therefore, further sought a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or direction commanding the second respondent to release the entire amounts due to them as detailed in various exhibits produced in the original petitions.

4. When the original petitions came up for consideration, learned counsel for the petitioners in all these cases, submitted that after the issuance of the show cause notices, petitioners have submitted their reply and thereafter the Corporation has not taken any steps so far. In other words, the proposal to have the cancellation of the contract is seen to have been blocked by the Corporation. Learned counsel for the Corporation maintained that the Corporation had not taken any steps in pursuance of the respective show cause notices. In view, of this, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that he is not pressing the contention with regard to the issuance, of a writ of certiorari quashing the show cause notices.

5. Then, what is left in these original petitions is the prayer to command the respondents to pay the amounts due to the petitioners under various contracts. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that petitioners are entitled to get reliefs on that count.

6. It is now well settled that jurisdiction of this Court under Art.226 of the Constitution of India cannot undoubtedly be exercised in favour of persons who have adequate and effective remedies available for approaching the Civil Court for realising the amount due to them.

7. Admittedly, a formal contract was entered into and that was executed between the parties as per the provision of which 95% of the petitioners' bill amount was paid for proof of despatch of goods and the balance 5% was to be paid within 7 days after the receipt and verification of the goods by mutual consent. True, it is submitted that petitioners have satisfactorily completed their work, but the respondents have not performed their part of the contract by making payment of the entire amount due to the petitioners. Petitioners have explained in their original petitions as to how the amounts are due to them for the work done.

8. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the respondent-Corporation is a public authority, an instrumentality of the State and they cannot act arbitrarily like a private individual and it cannot retain the amount. In other words, a duty is cast on them to make the payment of the amounts due to the petitioners. Counsel forcefully submitted that the non-payment of the balance amount due to them is illegal and unsustainable and opposed to all standards and sequences. This,