HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW WRIT - C No. - 8178 of 2025 Court No. - 2 HON'BLE MRS. SANGEETA CHANDRA, J. HON'BLE BRIJ RAJ SINGH, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel, who appears for the State-respondents as well as Shri Ankit Singh, who has put in appearance on behalf of the respondent nos.2 and 3 by filing his 'vakalatnama', which is taken on record. 2. This writ petition has been filed by petitioner with following main prayer: "(i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus thereby commanding the opposite parties especially the opposite party no. 3 to ensure the due payment of interest Rs. 9,64,808/- till the month of July 2025 and for the further period till the actual payment is made as per the prescribed rate of interest within the shortest possible time after taking the due approval from the competent authority, in the interest of justice." 3. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner's firm was given a contract for supply of raw material as per rate provided and the petitioner executed the supply agreement in time. The bills for raw material for supply of 'Pashu Aahaar' etc. amounting to Rs.28,15,951/- was due to be paid by respondent nos.2 and 3 within one month from the date of supply as per purchase order issued by the P.C.D.F. Limited. The petitioner has completed the supply in the month Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Jai Kumar Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Ankit Singh, Sandeep Sharma S.R. Garments And Enterprises Thru. Proprietor Ram Pati .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Dairy Development Lko. And 2 Others .....Respondent(s) of April, 2024. It was the duty of the P.C.D.F. Limited to make payment latest by May, 2024, but the said amount was not paid to the petitioner despite repeated applications being made. As per Clause 20 of the terms and conditions of the supply annexed as Annexure No.8 to the writ petition, interest on delayed payment was also due, which had not been paid and now the total amount due against respondent nos.2 and 3 is Rs.37,08,240/-, which was due to be paid till 12.09.2024. Since respondent nos.2 and 3 are a public undertaking, they are bound to respect the terms and conditions of the supply agreement issued to the petitioner. Although the principal amount of the bills has been paid, but an amount of Rs.9,64,808/- is still to be paid as interest on delayed payment in terms of the Clause 20 of the terms and conditions of the supply agreement. 4. Shri Ankit Singh, learned counsel for respondent nos.2 and 3 has pointed out page 47 of the paper book, which is a part of contract signed between the parties/terms and conditions for supply of 'Pashu Aahaar', Annexure No.8 to the writ petition. In Clause 23 of the said terms and conditions, it has been stated that in case there is any dispute relating to supply, the Milk Commissioner, Dairy Development Department, U.P., Lucknow shall either decide the dispute himself or nominate an officer, who shall decide the dispute. 5. It has been submitted by learned counsel for respondent nos.2 and 3 that the petitioner has submitted a representation to respondent no.3 i.e. P.C.D.F. Limited, which has been decided on 05.02.2025, a copy of which has been filed as Annexure No.1 to the writ petition. 6. Counsel for the petitioner states that there is no dispute regarding supply. The Clause 23 of the terms and conditions of supply agreement will apply only with regard to the dispute regarding supply. The petitioner is only asking for payment to be made in Clause 20 of the supply agreement signed between the parties. 7. We have gone through Clause 20 of the terms and conditions of the supply agreement and there is no condition regarding payment of interest, if there is a delay in making payment. 8. In Divisional Forest Officer Vs. Bishwanath Tea Company Ltd. 1981 WRIC No. 8178 of 2025 2 (3) SCC 238, the Supreme Court has observed that a party cannot utilise Article 226 in respect of a contractual matter by using a camouflage of constitutionality of the measure or breach of any fundamental right. Although, the High Court can entertain in its extraordinary jurisdiction a petition to issue any of the prerogative writs "for any other purpose" but such writ can be issued where there is executive action unsupported by law or even in respect of a corporation, there is denial of equality before law or equal protection of law. A party can file a writ petition for enforcement of a right under a Statute. Ordinarily, however where breach of contract is complained of, the party complaining of such breach may sue for specific performance of the contract, if contract is capable of being specifically performed, or the party may sue for damages. Such a Suit would ordinarily be cognizable by the civil court. The High Court in its extraordinary jurisdiction would not entertain a petition either for specific performance of contract or for recovering damages. 9. The judgement rendered in Divisional Forest Officer Vs. Bishwanath Tea Company Ltd. (supra), has been followed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bareilly Development Authority Vs. Ajai Pal Singh, reported in (1989) 2 SCC 116 and also in Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. and Another Vs. Dolly Das, reported in (1999) 4 SCC 450. 10. Consequently, we believe that the Writ Petition claiming interest for delayed payment in terms of a contract is not maintainable. 11. It is accordingly dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to approach appropriate forum. August 26, 2025 Anupam S/- WRIC No. 8178 of 2025 3 (Brij Raj Singh,J.) (Mrs. Sangeeta Chandra,J.) Digitally signed by :- ANUPAM SINGH PATEL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench