By the Court.—Heard learned counsel for petitioner and perused the record.

2. Petitioner is a Contractor and claimed to have executed some civil work in respect whereto payment has not been made. It is stated that amount is not disputed, therefore, writ petition is maintainable and reliance is placed on Food Corporation of India and another v. M/s Seil Ltd. and others, AIR 2008 SC 1101; M/s Chitra Gupta Trading v. U.P. Public Works Department and others, 2010(5) ADJ 299 (DB); and, M/s Pratiksha Constructions v. State of U.P. and others (Writ Petition No. 41238 of 2013), decided on 11.2.2015.

3. However, we do not find that aforesaid authorities help petitioner in the present matter. In Food Corporation of India (supra) dispute relates to supply of levy sugar pursuant to Government orders which was governed by Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act, 1955”). Under Section 3(2)(f) of Act, 1955 Central Government is empowered to direct any manufacturer of sugar to sell sugar to Central Government or State Government or a body owned or controlled by them for the purpose of making it available to public at fair price. This sugar is known commonly as levy sugar. Price of such levy sugar was fixed by Central Government in exercise of statutory power conferred under Section 3(3C) of Act, 1955 on yearly basis. Price of levy sugar although is required to be notified when sugar year commences but their exist a practice to notify previous year’s price as a levy sugar on an ad hoc basis in October and final price used to be notified later on. Pursuant to such directions and notifications issued by Central Government under the provisions of Act, 1955 respondents Sugar Company supplied levy sugar to agencies of Central Government, i.e., Food Corporation of India as also UPPCF. The sugar mill demanded price of levy sugar from both, Food Corporation of India as also Directorate of Sugar, Ministry of Food. It is this non payment of price of levy sugar which caused sugar mill to approach Delhi High Court by filing writ petition. In respect of supply made to Central Government, Delhi High Court held that direction for making payment should be made but in respect of supply of levy sugar made to other agencies it was held that such direction is impermissible and remedy lies in common law. When matter came to Supreme Court it was held that supply of sugar was made in terms of statutory order as also on the directions made by Central Government and there is no factual dispute. Court held that contractual disputes involving public law elements are amenable to writ jurisdiction.

4. In other two judgments of this Court, i.e., M/s Chitra Gupta Trading (supra) and M/s Pratiksha Constructions (supra) directions for payment were issued but question as to whether writ petition is maintainable or not as such was not an issue raised, argued and decided.

5. This question has been considered specifically in Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited and another v. Dolly Das, 1999 (4) SCC 450, wherein Court said that in absence of any constitutional or statutory rights being involved, a writ proceeding would not lie to enforce contractual obligations even if it is sought to be enforced against State or to avoid contractual liability arising thereto. In the absence of any statutory right, Article 226 cannot be availed to claim any money in respect of breach of contract or tort or otherwise.

6. In Kerala State Electricity Board and another v. Kurien E. Kalathil and others, 2000 (6) SCC 293, Court said that interpretation and implementation of a clause in a contract cannot be subject-matter of a writ petition. Whether a contract envisages actual payment or not is a question of construction of contract. If a term of contract is violated, ordinarily remedy is not the writ petition under Article 226. A contract would not become statutory simply because it is for construction of a public utility and it has been awarded by a statutory bo