IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.3807 of 2011 KAMLAKAR DHARI Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- 02. 16.3.2011 Counsel for the petitioner was given indulgence to produce before this Court the judgments which, according to him, helps him in overcoming the maintainability question as such because admitted position is that petitioner had been appointed on a contract basis for a limited period under the respondents and all rights and duties flow from the said contract. Since it is a concluded contract, breach thereof would mean remedy under common law and not under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Today two decisions of the Hon`ble Apex Court are cited which are the case of United India Insurance Company v. Manubhai Dharmasinhbhai Gajera and others, (2008) 10 SCC 404 and Whirlpool Corporation v. Registrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai, (1998) 8 SCC 1. Reading of both the decisions would show that none of the decisions of the Supreme Court could remotely be connected with the issue raised in the present writ application. In addition to that counsel for the petitioner further presses two other decisions passed by the learned single Judge of this Court. They are the case of Suryadeo Singh v. State of Bihar and others, 2011 (1) PLJR 28 and Amod Kumar vs. Patna Municipal Corporation , 1011 (1) PLJR 750. 2 Even a plain reading of these two decisions would show that the question raised by the Court was not the issue. The question in the present case is not availability of statutory remedy being the ground for ousting the petitioner from this Court, under Article 226, the question is whether remedy would lie under Article 226 in a concluded contract or remedy would lie under common law. The writ application has no merit. It is dismissed. rkp (Ajay Kumar Tripathi,J.)