Rajiv Sahai Endlaw, J. - (1.) THE petition seeks a mandamus to the respondent No. 1 to release a payment of Rs. 3,41,69,381/ - minus Rs. 20 lakhs to the petitioner towards actual costs of work done under a contract entered into between the petitioner and the respondent No. 1. The respondent No. 1 and respondent No. 2 Punj Lloyd Ltd. are also sought to be restrained from commencing the completion of the work left by the petitioner under the contract.
(2.) IT has been enquired from the counsel for the petitioner, as to how in a purely simple contractual matter, writ remedy can be permitted to be invoked. The counsel for the petitioner first contended that, because the respondent No. 1 is a State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India, the writ petition would be maintainable.
(3.) THE aforesaid, according to me, is not correct position in law. Merely because there is a money claim against an entity which qualifies as State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India, does not justify the resort to Article 226 of the Constitution of India, instead of to the ordinary remedy available under the civil law.;