Yogendra Kumar Srivastava, J.

Heard Sri Arvind Kumar Verma, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mrs. Swati Agrawal, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Pranjal Mehrotra, learned counsel appearing for respondent no.1 and Sri Manish Goyal, learned Additional Advocate General assisted by Mrs. Akanksha Sharma, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the State-respondents and also respondent no.4.

2. The present writ petition has been filed seeking the following reliefs:

"(i) Pass a suitable order or direction to UPRNN to give the order of AMC in favour of petitioner and release the complete payment of 5 years at once i.e. Rs. 8,41,42,960.00 + 18% GST within a week so that the damages caused by the delays in payment of CCTV AMC may be covered.

(ii) Pass a suitable order or direction to accountant, Hon'ble High Court Lucknow to release the funds sanctioned by the government.

(iii) Pass a suitable order or direction to UPRNN to provide funds of the damaged CCTV and other equipment's due to fire that are not covered in AMC.

(iv) Pass a suitable order or direction to UPRNN to complete

the measurement of all the civil work etc. executed by the petitioner at gate no. 3A, 3B, 4 and 5 and control room etc. and make the payment (including GST) to the petitioner.

(v) Pass a suitable order or direction to UPRNN to pay at-least a compensation of 1 Cr. to cover the loss the petitioner has to face due to delayed payments of the civil work.

(vi) Pass a suitable order or direction to the U.P. State government to release the funds of 936 CCTV Camera for Hon'ble High Court, Allahabad so that the basic and critical infrastructure like Genset, Precision cooling etc. may be restored in the Server, UPS, Control Room. Further kindly instruct UPRNN to get the said work executed on the revised tender rate of 2015 in favour of petitioner."

3. In view of the aforementioned reliefs as prayed in the writ petition a preliminary objection has been raised by the counsel for the respondents with regard to the maintainability of the writ petition on the ground that the writ petition seeks to enforce certain contractual rights and obligations for which the appropriate remedy is to approach the civil court, and the writ petition is not liable to be entertained.

4. As regards the principal relief sought in the writ petition with regard to a direction to be given to the U.P. Rajkiya Nirman Nigam Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the "UPRNN") to give the order for an Annual Maintenance Contract (hereinafter referred to as the "AMC") in favour of the petitioner, the counsel appearing for the UPRNN has raised an objection that the contract was awarded to the U.P. Small Industries Corporation (in short "the UPSIC") and, therefore, the petitioner cannot make any claim with regard to AMC charges. Further, it is submitted that the UPRNN as the executing agency had received no instruction from respondent no.4 regarding payment of any amount towards AMC to the petitioner, and in view of the same, the reliefs sought by the petitioner are not legally tenable and petition is liable to be dismissed.

5. The basic facts as are evident from the pleadings in the writ petition and the supplementary affidavit dated 13.03.2019 filed by the petitioner go to show that the petitioner M/S Ipjacket Technology India Private Limited was registered by the UPSIC under a registration certificate dated 22.01.2015 whereunder it had acquired eligibility for participation in UPSIC's Assistance Scheme for Marketing and also for Tender Participation/Fabrication/Export/Raw Material/Construction/ Electrification/Land-Plot Allotment/Pollution Control Assistance. The registration certificate dated 22.01.2015, a copy whereof has been filed as part of Annexure SA-1 to the supplementary affidavit demonstrates that the said registration was valid for the financial year from the date of issue and was to have expired on 31.03.2015. The terms of the "Marketing Assistance Scheme" indicate that the scheme was for prov