APHC010540272024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3330] WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY NINETH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO WRIT PETITION NO: 28239/2024 Between: Manojavam Construction Llp ...PETITIONER AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. SRAVAN KUMAR NAIDANA Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ RURAL DEV 2. GP FOR FINANCE PLANNING The Court made the following: 2 ORDER: The present Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the following relief/s: "…pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or direction declaring the action of the Respondents in withholding the payment an amount of Rs.38,26,696.88 even after finalizing the bills, payable to the petitioner in relation to the work i.e. “Providing additional amenities to Kalyanamandapam at Bhumaiahgaripalli Village of Meedipentla GP of Vemula Mandal in YSR Kadapa District, est cost Rs.15.00Lakhs” in vide agreement No.2370011897/2023-24, dated 12.02.2024, as the same is illegal, arbitrary and consequently direct the respondents to consider for payments of Rs.13,66,084/- with interest @ 12% per annum for the delayed amount to the petitioner in respect of execution of above-mentioned work forthwith and pass such other or further orders……." 2. Pithily, the Writ Petition is filed to direct the respondents for payment of amount due to the petitioner for the work executed. 3. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Union of India and others v. Puna Hinda1, observed in the following manner: "Though, the jurisdiction of the High Court is wide but in respect of pure contractual matters in the field of private law, having no statutory flavour, are better adjudicated upon by the forum agreed to by the parties. The dispute as to whether the amount is payable or not and/or how much amount is payable are disputed questions of facts. There is no admission on the part of the appellants to infer that the amount stands crystallized. Therefore, in the absence of any acceptance of Joint Survey Report by the competent authority, no right would accrue to the writ petitioner only because measurements cannot be undertaken after passage of time. May be, the resurvey cannot take place but the measurement books of the work executed from time to time 1 (2021) 10 SCC 690 3 would form a reasonable basis for assessing the amount due and payable to the writ petitioner, but such process could be undertaken only by the agreed forum i.e., arbitration and not by the Writ Court as it does not have the expertise in respect of measurements or construction of roads." 4. Set apart even if the liability is admitted by the Government, this Court cannot issue direction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to compel it to make the payment of such dues. The only remedy open to the person aggrieved is either to approach the civil court for necessary relief or to get the matter referred to the Arbitrator, if there is such a clause under the contract. Writ is not a remedy in such cases. 5. Therefore, in view of the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court, the relief prayed by the petitioner cannot be granted by this Court. They have to approach either the civil court or before the authority as per the agreement. 6. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel thereto, Interlocutory Applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. __________________________________ JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO Date: 29.01.2025 Harin 4 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO 166 WRIT PETITION No. 28239 of 2024 Date: 29.01.2025 Harin