THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION No. 4934 OF 2010 ORDER: The relief sought for in this writ petition is to declare the action of the respondents in imposing on the petitioner the condition that they should carry out additional works beyond the scope of the works entrusted to them under agreement dated 20.10.2004, and in issuing orders in Memo No.DB/TO/JTO.2/52K dated 25.01.2010 and in Lr. No.DB/JTO/ISRLC/Vol.14/56-M dated 03.02.2010, as illegal and arbitrary. The petitioner seeks a consequential direction to the respondents to refer the issue relating to the additional items of work to a Committee in terms of Clause 39.3.1 of the General Conditions of Agreement dated 20.10.2004. Facts, in brief, are that, the petitioner is a pubic limited company engaged in the business of construction of various infrastructure projects. On tenders being invited by the Engineer- in-Chief (Irrigation), under E.P.C. Turnkey system for Polavaram Project Right Main Canal packages vide tender notice No.2W/E&c/IRR/2004 dated 18.08.2004, the petitioner participated in the bid process and, on their being found to be the lowest tenderer, they were awarded the work of executing the ISR Main Canal from Km 14.800 to Km 38.199 vide agreement dated 20.10.2004. In the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the petitioner has furnished details of the work required to be executed under the agreement. They would refer to the letter of the 4th respondent dated 03.02.2010 whereby they were called upon to conclude an agreement for a revised payment schedule approved by the 3rd respondent. According to the petitioner the revised payment schedule included excavation of the main canal for an additional length of 1.154 Km; lining of the main canal for an additional length of 1.154 Km; and construction of 12 nos. of additional structures. The petitioner would submit that, while the scope of the work had increased as a result of their being asked to excavate a length of 1.154 Km, construct additional 12 nos. CM & CD works and increase the lining of the main canals by 1.154 Km, the payment provision was retained at the bid value of the original scope of work, and the additional work was treated as a part of the package work. Sri S. Niranjan Reddy, learned Counsel for the petitioners, would place reliance on Clause 39.3.1 of the General Conditions of Contract dated 20.10.2004 to contend that these additional items had increased the scope of the work, were outside the scope of the original contract and the dispute, regarding the price to be paid for entrustment of such items of work, should be referred to the committee specified in Clause 39.3.1 as their decision was binding not only on the Government but also on the petitioner. The petitioner, in effect, seeks implementation of the conditions of contract. As the contract, in the case on hand, is a non-statutory contract it is in the realm of private law. Any dispute relating to the interpretation of the terms and conditions of such a contract, or enforcement/ implementation of a clause in such a contract, should not, ordinarily, be entertained in writ proceedings. If the terms and conditions of a non-statutory contract are violated, or if a party to the contract does not implement any of the conditions stipulated therein, the remedy is by way of a Civil Suit before a Civil Court of competent jurisdiction. The extra-ordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot, ordinarily, be invoked for resolution of such contractual disputes. I see no reason to exercise discretion under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to entertain this Writ Petition seeking enforcement of obligations under a non-statutory contract. Leaving it open to the petitioner to avail such other remedies, as are available to them in law, the Writ Petition fails and is, accordingly, dismissed. However, in the circumstances, without costs. Date: 04.03.2010 ____________________________ RAMESH RANGANATHAN,J RRB/MRKR