WP(C) 5255/2009 BEFORE HONBLE MR JUSTICE T VAIPHEI Heard Mr SC Biswas, the learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mrs R Bora, the learned counsel for the respondents No. 1 to 5 and Mr P Katakey, the learned counsel for the respondent No. 6. The writ petition is directed against the act of the respondent Nos. 1 t o 5 in withholding the payment of the bills of the petitioner amounting to Rs. 5 ,17,55,299/- admittedly payable to the petitioner. The brief facts of the case is that the petitioner firm, which is a Class 1 contractor, doing various contra ctual works under the Central Govt., State of Assam as well as the Govt. underta king companies, was allotted the contract works for Site Grading-1 works for Br ahmaputra Petrochemical Complex of M/s Brahmaputra Cracker and Polymer Ltd. at L epetkata (Assam)-Part-A vide the agreement dated 29.12.2008. According to the petitioner, for execution of the aforesaid works, it em ployed various works agencies, labours etc. and all claims by such agencies, emp loyees, labourers are settled by it. However, it was surprised to receive the l etter dated 21.10.2009 (Annexure 3) issued by the respondent No. 5 whereby it wa s directed to pay an amount of Rs. 55,76,55,299/- to the respondent No. 6 with w hom it has no privity of contract. The petitioner duly submitted its reply on 1 1.11.2009 stating, inter alia, that there was no such claim liability and that t he respondent Nos. 1 to 5 had no role to play in the transaction between the pet itioner’s firm and the respondent No. 6, which is merely a third party. Neverth eless, the respondent No. 5 issued the impugned letter directing the petitioner to settle/make payment of the aforesaid amount to the respondent No. 6 within 28 .11.2009 as otherwise they would deduct/withhold the amount from its bill. It w as under the aforesaid circumstances, that this writ petition has been filed, by the petitioner. At the outset, Mr Katakey, the learned counsel for the respondent No. 6 has rais ed a preliminary objection on the maintainability of the writ petition contendin g that as the relief claimed by the petitioner is virtually a claim case for enf orcement of contractual liability, the writ petition is not maintainable. In my opinion, this contention ought to have been raised by the respondent No. 6 at t he earliest and when the matter has been pending for over a year, it is now too late in the day to entertain his plea. That apart, there is no role of thumb wh ich says that a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution cannot be en tertained under any circumstances for enforcement of contractual obligation. Th e principle that Article 226 should not be invoked for enforcement of the contra ctual obligation is merely a role of prudence. Thus, the contention of the resp ondent No. 6 fails. The admitted position of the parties in this case is that t he amount of Rs. 5,17,55,299/- is liable to be paid by the respondents No. 1 to 5 to the petitioner’s firm for execution of the aforesaid work. There is also n o dispute that there is no agreement between the petitioner firm and the respond ents No. 1 to 5 for payment of the bill due to a third party such as the respond ent No. 6 nor there is any agreement between the petitioner firm and the respond ent No. 6, authorising the respondent Nos. 1 to 5 to pay the bills of the respon dents from the bills of the petitioner firm. Under the circumstances, it is demonstrably established that there is no privity of contract between the parties in so far as the payment of the outstanding amo unt due to the respondent No. 6 from the petitioner firm. No authority or law c an be cited by the respondents for withholding the payment of the amount in ques tion in favour of the petitioner. That being the undisputed position in fact as well as in law, this writ petition has merit. In the result, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned letter dated 13.11.200 9 issued by the respondent No. 5 on behalf of the respondent No. 1 (Annexure 5) is hereby quashed. Consequently, the respondents No. 1 to 5 are directed to rel ease Rs. 5,17,55,299/- in favour of the petitioner’s firm within a period of one month from the date of receipt of this order. It shall however, be open to the respondent No. 6 to approach the competent court of jurisdiction to recover any outstanding bill against the petitioner for recovery thereof. The parties are directed to bear their respective costs.