A writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not maintainable to enforce a contractual obligation pure and simple.

JUDGMENT :

P.K. Mohanty, J. - The Petitioner, a transport firm, represented by its Managing Partner has approached this Court for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the opposite parties to clear up its dues along with 18% interest from the date of its entitlement along with compensation for mental agony, within a stipulated time for the post of litigation.

2. The grievance of the Petitioner firm is that it had executed different contract works under the Orissa State Commercial Transport Corporation (Opposite party No. 2) between 1981 and 1983 including intraport transportation work. But since after 1989 opposite party No. 2 did not allot any work and on the other hand did not take any steps to clear up the outstanding dues of the Petitioner for which it made representation to opposite party No 1 for appropriate direction to opposite party No. 2 to release the outstanding dues. Opposite party No. 2 however, without paying the outstanding dues, intervened by a letter to the office of opposite party No. 1 wherein it gave particulars and reason for non-payment, a copy whereof is Annexure-2. The Petitioner made further representation to opposite party No. 1 and' in turn, opposite party No. 1 instructed opposite party No. 2 to settle the matter. It is contended that in spite of repeated approaches and direction from the Government nothing having happened, it reminded opposite party No. 2 to clear up the bills. On, 7-10-1992 on a representation of the Petitioner, opposite party No. 1 made a further direction to opposite party No. 2 to clear up the arrear dues. A series of correspondences having yielded no result, the Petitioner served a pleader notice on the opposite parties for action as per law claiming payment of a sum of Rs. 89, 96,0001- with 18% interest. But instead of clearing the dues, opposite party No. 2 replied to wait till the decision of the Government was received. Hence, the Petitioner has approached this Court for a direction to the opposite parties to clear up the dues with interest and compensation for delayed payment.

3. The main question that arises for consideration in this writ petition is, whether to enforce payment of dues under a, contract with the State or with an instrumentality of a State, or to enforce contractual obligations under a contract pure and simple, a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is maintainable. Mr. A.K. Mohapatra, learned Counsel for the Petitioner has submitted that the Orissa State Commercial Transport Corporation (opposite party No. 2 herein) is a State within the meaning of. Article 12 of the Constitution of India and thus, is amenable to the writ jurisdiction of this Court, inasmuch as, it is contended that even for enforcing a contractual obligation as against the State, a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is maintainable.

Sri Mohapatra, in support of his case, referred to the decision in Hindustan Sugar Mills Vs. State of Rajasthan and Others. It is the submission of the learned Counsel that the Government should honour its obligation arising out of a contract and should not drive the Citizen concern to file a suit for recovery of the amount. In a democratic society governed by the rule of law, it is the duty of the State to do what is fair and just to the citizen and the State should not see to defeat the legitimate claim of the citizen adopting legalistic attitude but should do what is fair and just. The facts of the case are quite different than the present one; What,was the consideration before the Apex Court in the aforesaid case was, whether the freight formed part of the sale price within the meaning of definition of the term and hence no sales tax would be payable by the Government on the amount of freight. In such situation, when it involved a question of Interpretation and the applicability of a statute in terms of the agreement, the Apex Court held that the Government should honour its legal obligation evert arising out