IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) ^ WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY NINETH DAY OF JANUARY^® TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE -r.-n-. PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR WRIT PETITION NO: 31234 OF 2074 g. % RAO Between: Karthikeya Infra Projects. Rep. by. its Proprietor J Veera Venkata ?7 Prakash Rao.Age 55 years D NO 16^36- 37,4th Street, Samba Murty Nagar Kakinada East Godavari District. ...Petitioner AND Rep. by its Principal Secretary ofsSt ' Department, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amara^ki. Guntur Finance X its Principal Secretary Fii Department, Secretariat, Velagapudi. Amaravati, Guntur District. 3. The District Panchayat Officer, Kakinada X District x" 4. The Project Director, MGNREGS Scheme, Kakinada District 5. The Mandal Praja Parishad DevelopmentOfficer Kakinada District. Thallarevvu Mandal, 7. The project Director (P.D), housing corporation, Kakinada District. ...Respondents of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court be pleased to issue Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution may more particularly declaring the action of the respondent authorities in not releasing the amount of Rs. 65,94,976/ Five Lakh Ninety Four Thousand Nine the work executed by the petitioner an appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of Writ of Mandamus one - (Sixty Hundred and Seventy Six Only) for under Work I.D 040493704004171295 0k (full amount)., despite issuing Fund Transfer Orders under F.T.R Nos. 9043721000270, as arbitrary, illegal, contrary to law and against the Principles of Natural Justice and to issue a consequential direction directing the respondent authorities to release the amounts payable to the petitioner with an interest at the rate of 24 percentage per annum. lA NO: 1 OF 2024 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the Fligh Court may be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to forthwith release the amount of Rs. 65,94,976/- (Sixty Five Lakh Ninety Four Thousand Nine Hundred and Seventy Six Only) for the work executed by the petitioner vide FTR No. 9043721000270, pending disposal of the above writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI DEVASRI ROSHAN KANCHARLA Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ & RURAL DEVELOPMENT Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR FINANCE & PLANNING The Court made the following order: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO WRIT PETITION No. 31234 of 2024 ORDER: The present Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the following relief/s: "....to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondent authorities in not releasing the amount of Rs.65,94,976/- (Sixty Five Lakh Ninety Four Thousand Nine Hundred and Seventy Six Only) for the work executed by the petitioner under Work I.D No.040493704004171295 (full amount)., despite issuing Fund Transfer Orders under F.T.R. Nos.9043721000270, as arbitrary, illegal, contrary to Law and against the Principles of Natural Justice and to issue a consequential direction directing the respondent authorities to release the amounts payable to the petitioner with an interest at the rate of 24% per annum and to pass such other order or 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 Hinda\ observed in the following manner: (2021) 10 see 690 w # • 2 "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 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." Set apart even if the liability is admitted by the Government, this 4. 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. Therefore, in view of the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court, the 5. 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. 3 Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. There shall be no 6. order as to costs. As a sequel thereto, Interlocutory Applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. Sd/- J.SAROJA ASSISTANT REGISTRAR r //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, 1. One CC to Sri Devasri Roshan Kancharla, Advocate [OPUC] 2. Two CCs to GP for Panchayat Raj & Rural Development, High Court of , Andhra Pradesh. [OUT] 3. Two CCs to GP for Finance & Planning, High Court of Andhra Pradesh^ [OUT] 4. Two CD Copies RAM HIGH COURT DATED:29/01/2025 X 21| FEB 2025 ^ Current Section V®eSPATCVV^^ o\ ft ORDER WP.No.31234of 2024 DISMISSING THE WP WITHOUT COSTS