JUDGMENT : DEVASHIS BARUAH, J. Heard Mr. D. Nath, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner. Mr. D. Goswami, the learned counsel appears on behalf of the Respondent No. 1. 2. None appears on behalf of Respondent No. 2 in spite of service having been effected. 3. The Petitioner herein is aggrieved by the communication dated 18.06.2024 issued by the AGM (CCD), NTPC, Bongaigaon wherein in respect to the machineries which the Petitioner claims to be belonging to it, the Petitioner was asked to pay an amount of Rs. 1,56,76,445/-failing which the bank guarantee submitted by the Petitioner being BG 0530ILG000316 dated 06.02.2016 would be invoked. The Petitioner accordingly paid the said amount of Rs. 1,56,76,445/- and under such circumstances has sought for a direction upon the Respondent No. 1 to refund the said amount. 4. The brief facts which led to the filing of the present writ petition are that it is the case of the Petitioner that in respect to a work awarded to the Respondent No. 2 vide Letter of Acceptance No. CS-4610-315-9-CS-LOA-5101 dated 31.03.2008, the Petitioner submitted its credentials and also provided various machineries. The work awarded to the Respondent No. 2 was terminated on 25.11.2013. Resultantly, arbitral proceeding was initiated by the Respondent No. 2 against the Respondent No. 1. The Petitioner admittedly was not a party to the said proceedings. 5. It is also relevant to take note of that upon a request being made by the Petitioner for release of its machineries, the machineries were released by the Respondent No. 1 upon submission of Bank Guarantee No. BG 0530ILG000316 dated 06.02.2016 as well as the Indemnity Bond submitted by the Petitioner. The said bank guarantee was for an amount of Rs. 1,56,76,445/- which was the value of the machineries which the Petitioner sought for release. 6. The records further reveal that in the arbitral proceedings between the Respondent No. 2 and the Respondent No. 1, the Respondent No. 2 made claims in respect to the machineries and equipment which the Petitioner claims that the same belong to the Petitioner. The Petitioner, however, was never informed about the said claims either by the Respondent No. 1 or by the Respondent No. 2. The Petitioner, however, was never informed about the said claims either by the Respondent No. 1 or by the Respondent No. 2. Thereupon, an arbitral award was passed on 01.07.2020 whereby certain amounts were awarded in favour of the Respondent No. 2, and the amount so awarded included the value of the machineries which the Petitioner claim belongs to the Petitioner. 7. It is further apparent from the materials on record that in the meantime, the award dated 01.07.2020 stood satisfied upon due payment being made by the Respondent No. 1 to the Respondent No. 2 pursuant to a Settlement Agreement dated 28.02.2024. Under such circumstances, as the Respondent No. 1 had already paid the said amount in respect to the machineries which was released to the Petitioner in the year 2016, the Respondent No. 1 issued the communication dated 18.06.2024 directing the Petitioner to deposit the amount of Rs. 1,56,76,445/- within a period of 7 (seven) days, failing which the irrevocable and unconditional bank guarantee dated 06.02.2016 submitted by the Petitioner would be invoked. 8. The records further reveal that the Petitioner under compulsion paid the said amount of Rs. 1,56,76,445/-. Being aggrieved, the Petitioner has therefore approached this Court. 9. This Court further takes note of that the Respondent No. 1 has filed an affidavit-in-opposition supporting the communication dated 18.06.2024. In the said affidavit-in-opposition, the arbitral award was enclosed and a perusal thereof shows that the proceedings before the learned Arbitrator included the claims in respect to the machineries which the Petitioner claims that those machineries belong to the Petitioner. 10. The question, therefore, arises as to whether this Court can direct the Respondent No. 1 to refund the amount of Rs. 1,56,76,445/- to the Petitioner. 11. It is the opinion of this Court that any direction(s) are passed directing the Respondent No. 1 to refund the amount of Rs. 1,56,76,445/-, it would not only tantamount to modifying the arbitral award which this Court ought not to do so in exercise of the powers of judicial review but would also amount to penalizing the Respondent No. 1 twice for the machineries in respect to which the Respondent No. 1 had also satisfied the award given in favour of the Respondent No. 2. 12. 12. The conspectus of facts delineated above would show that the Respondent No. 2 who made claims in respect to the machineries which the Petitioner claims it belong to the Petitioner. 13. Considering the above, it is the opinion of this Court that the Petitioner’s claim actually ought to have been against the Respondent No. 2 inasmuch as the Respondent No. 2 has already been disbursed the amount pursuant to the Settlement Agreement dated 28.02.2024 in respect to its claims arising out of the award dated 01.07.2020, which included the machineries which the Petitioner claims it belongs to the Petitioner. 14. In that view of the matter, the dispute therefore is primarily between the Petitioner and the Respondent No. 2 and under such circumstances, the dispute is purely a civil dispute between the Petitioner and the Respondent No. 2. The present proceeding is a public law remedy and such a private civil dispute between the Petitioner and the Respondent No. 2 cannot be entertained. 15. Under such circumstances, this Court is not inclined to entertain the instant writ petition, for which the same stands dismissed. 16. Before parting with the record, this Court, however, observes that the dismissal of the instant writ petition shall not preclude or prejudice the Petitioner from making any claim against the Respondent No. 2 before the appropriate forum, if so advised.