JUDGMENT

Sharad Kumar Sharma, J. - The petitioner, who is a registered government contractor, and in whose favour, a work contract, being Contract No. 277/EE dated 23.06.2020, was executed. He has filed this writ petition, contending thereof that, as a consequence of the execution of the aforesaid work contract, under the terms of the aforesaid contract, an amount of Rs. 11,99,213.63 for the work done by him, is due to be paid to him, under the terms of the contract for the work, which the petitioner was directed to be undertaken with regard to the construction of the parking place at H.P. Band on Upper Lower Link Mall Road, Almora.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that despite having approached the respondents on number of occasions, they have not yet remitted the amount, which, according to the petitioner, is due to be paid to him since having satisfactorily completed the work, and amount claimed to be paid would fall to be an admitted due; hence, he has filed this writ petition, praying for the following reliefs:-

"i) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to pay the entire payment relating to the assigned work performed under the contract no. 277/E.E. dated 23-6-2020 to the petitioner

ii) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to pay interest on the delayed payment of contract no. 277/E.E. dated 23-6-2020 to the petitioner @ 18% per annum w.e.f. 28-9- 2020.

iii) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to release the performance security and additional performance security of Rs. Rs. 3,35,600/- to the petitioner

iv) issue any other writ, order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem just and proper in the circumstances of the case,

v) award the costs of the writ petition in favour of the petitioner"

3. It is a simplicitor and rather a settled law of mandamus, that a writ petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India for a relief of a writ of mandamus could be entertained by the High Court by issuing, a writ of mandamus under satisfaction of certain pre conditional norms, where the party respondent is a State, and they are liable to perform a statutory duty under the Statute, which they, on a prior request being made by the petitioner had declined to perform their duty or have denied to perform their duty. Its then only a writ of mandamus could be issued under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

4. This is not the case at hand governing the interse relationship of the parties. The case at hand is exclusively governed by the terms of the Contract, which admittedly was executed on invitation of tenders on 19.05.2020, which governs the interse relationship of the petitioner with the respondent, who had executed a contract Bond and which, in itself, in its Clause (24), provides that wherever there arises a factual dispute, out of the terms of the contract, the agreed remedy available for the contracting parties would be for seeking a reference to be sought before an Arbitrator for an adjudication of a dispute.

5. Since the terms of the contract are binding on the signatories to the contract under the contracting laws, and particularly, the petitioner, in whose favour it was executed, he would be simultaneously bound by the aforesaid arbitration clause, which already provided a platform which is available to the petitioner to be approached for redressal of his grievance.

6. Accordingly, this Court, in the exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, declines to exercise its equitable jurisdiction of interference, since the amount sought to be remitted is disputed by the counsel for the respondents, alleging non completion of work. The petitioner may get his remedies resorted to in terms of the contract.

7. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.

8. After conclusion of the judgement, the learned counsel for the peti