SANKARASUBBAN, J. :- These Writ Appeals are filed by the State of Kerala and also other Officials of the Public Works Department. In these Writ Appeals, the challenge is against the judgment of the learned single Judge directing the appellants to pay the respondents the amount covered by the bills for the work done by them as contractors.

2. Petitioners in the Original Petitions are contractors registered with the Government of Kerala. They have undertaken works on the basis of contract for the construction of roads, bridges, etc. The contract is awarded on the basis of tenders invited and thereafter, the contractor who has been chosen for the work, executes an agreement with the Government containing conditions regarding the governance of the contract. In all these cases, grievance of the petitioners is that even though the works undertaken by them has been completed, they were not paid the amounts due to them as per the final bills. The grievance appears to be that the works have been completed long ago. But the Government is not paying the amount on the pretext that there is lack of funds.

3. When the Original Petitions came up for admission before the learned single Judge, Government Pleader took notice in these matters and posted the cases for instructions of the Government. When the cases were posted, the Government Pleader, on instructions, submitted that it is true that amounts are payable. But due to lack of funds, the Government was not able to pay the amount immediately. The learned Judge, after recording the above submission disposed of the cases directing the appellants to disburse the amount within a time limit, failing which, it was stated that the appellants will be liable to pay interest at 12%. While disposing of the Original Petitions, the learned single Judge relied on a Division Bench decision of this Court in Anirudhan v. State of Kerala, (1999) 2 Ker LJ 252. It is against the above judgment that these appeals have been filed.

4. Learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the appellants submitted that it is true that the respondents have entered into contracts with the appellants and in many cases, amounts are due to the respondents from the appellants on the basis of the contract. Learned Additional Advocate General submitted that these are not statutory contracts. They are ordinary contracts entered into by the Government with the contractors. Hence, it cannot be said to be that there is a statutory duty or public duty on the part of the Government, even though the Additional Advocate General does not deny the fact that amounts are due to those persons.

5. In all these cases, writ in the nature of mandamus has been issued to the appellants to pay the amount within a time limit, failing which a penalty is to be levied in the nature of interest on the amount due. According to the learned Advocate General, writ of mandamus can be issued only if there is a statutory duty or public duty arising out of the contracts. Learned Additional Advocate General further contended that if the petitioners are allowed to approach this Court for the performance of the contractual rights, that may lead to a further expansion of the jurisdiction and any ordinary creditor of the Government can approach this Court and say that whatever the State does is public duty and hence any amount due from the Government is in discharge of the public duty and hence, pray for a writ of mandamus. According to the learned Additional Advocate General, this will make the issue of writ of mandamus perfunctory. This is not the intention for the issue of writ of mandamus tracing the history of writ of mandamus. It is not the intention of Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Article 226 of the Constitution can be applied, if the other remedies are not available and can be invoked only if there is violation of the fundamental rights or statutory rights.

6. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that there is no equity in the