APHC010489332013 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3328] WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GANNAMANENI RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO: 27067/2013 Between: 1. M/S. SREE SURYA OFF SET PRINTERS,, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING K. VISANATHA SARMA RESIDNET AT 40-3-10, KRISHNA RAO STREET, KRISHNA NAGAR, LABIPET, VIJAYAWADA - 5200010. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE SECRETARY, A.P.S.W.R.E.I. Society, D.S.S.Bhavan Complex, Masab Tank, Hyderabad-500028 ...RESPONDENT Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ or direction more particularly Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondent in issuing the impugned proceedings Rc. No. El / 8769 / 2012 dt nil-08-2013 as illegal, arbitrary, in violation of principles of natural justice and consequently set-aside the same IA NO: 1 OF 2013(WPMP 33505 OF 2013 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the respondent to clear pending bills submitted by the petitioner, pending disposal of the main writ petition, GRKP,J W.P.No.27067 of 2013 Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. V V ANIL KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent: 1. RAVI KUMAR PONAKAMPALLI The Court made the following: ORAL ORDER: Heard Sri V.V. Anil Kumar, learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioner (through online) and Sri Ponakampalli Ravi Kumar, learned Counsel for the respondents. 2. The present Writ Petition is filed seeking the following relief: “…issue a Writ or direction more particularly Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondent in issuing the impugned proceedings Rc. No. El / 8769 / 2012 dt nil-08-2013 as illegal, arbitrary, in violation of principles of natural justice and consequently set-aside the same and pass…” 3. Sri V.V. Anil Kumar, learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioner has drawn the attention of this Court to the Agreement executed between the Writ Petitioner and the Respondents. 4. Clause 30 of the Agreement would indicate that both parties have agreed to settle the dispute, if any, out of the mutual discussion or if such mutual discussion fails, the same shall be resolved by way of arbitration. This decision is not disputed by the Writ Petitioner. 5. On the contrary, Sri Ponakampalli Ravi Kumar, learned Counsel for the Respondents has drawn the attention of this Court to para No.25 of the Counter Affidavit. The same is usefully extracted hereunder: “In reply to para 12 and 13, it is respectfully submit that, it is not correct to say that the petitioner is not having any other alternative remedy except invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of the Hon’ble Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. As per the GRKP,J W.P.No.27067 of 2013 agreement under clause 30 “If for any reasons beyond the control of both the parties, any of the above terms of the Agreement cannot be fulfilled, then the matter will be sorted out through discussions mutually acceptable to both the parties. In case of any dispute arising out of the mutual discussions, the matter shall be referred to the Principal Secretary / Secretary to Government, Social Welfare Department, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad for arbitration’. The petitioner instead of filing an appeal to the Government, has approached the Hon’ble Court by filing a writ petition. Furthermore, the petitioner had been given fair chance of time and opportunity to submit his grievance and explanation but in either cases after issuing show-cause notice and termination order the petitioner did not respond and failed to submit his side of justification for his serious lapses and laxities committed in accomplishing the assigned job of printing and supply of question papers of Formative Assessment-I and Unit Test-I.” 6. The above extract would indicate that the dispute subsisting between the Writ Petitioner and Respondents is to be resolved by means of arbitration, as there is a clear clause. 7. Having regard to the submissions of learned Counsel on both sides, this Court deems it appropriate to dispose of the Writ Petition, directing the Writ Petitioner to take recourse to the procedure as mentioned in Clause 30 of the Agreement between the parties. 8. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of directing the parties to act in accordance with Clause 30 of the said Agreement. No order as to costs. 9. Interlocutory Applications, if any, stand closed in terms of this order. _____________________________________ GANNAMANENI RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD, J Date : 20.08.2025 TVN GRKP,J W.P.No.27067 of 2013 101 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GANNAMANENI RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD WRIT PETITION No.27067 OF 2013 Date : 20.08.2025 TVN