THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO Writ Petition No.17969 of 2004 ORDER: Petitioner is a contractor registered with Department of Roads and Buildings, Government of Andhra Pradesh. Under a contract, the work of “widening and strengthening the Bheemunipatnam – Narsipatnam Road from 42/0 Km to 57/575 Km at an estimated value of Rs.4,68,30,622/- (Rupees four crore sixty eight lakh thirty thousand six hundred and twenty two only) was awarded to petitioner. It is a lis contract and therefore, petitioner was required to undertake essential incidental and contingent supplemental works as stipulated in Addendum in Schedule A. During execution of works, petitioner was also asked to take up supplemental works at an estimated value of Rs.58,89,128/- (Rupees fifty eight lakh eighty nine thousand one hundred and twenty eight only) for which, Government accorded administrative sanction vide G.O.Rt.No.581 dated 09.06.2003. After completion of works, petitioner was paid bills as per original agreement, which was 10.65% in excess of the estimated value. Petitioner contends that even in respect of supplemental works, he should be paid 10.65% in excess of estimated value. According to him, terms and conditions of original agreement bind the parties. Petitioner approached third respondent for bills. By a communication dated 09.08.2004, third respondent informed that modified rates cannot be considered in the light of orders of Government in G.O.Rt.No.581 dated 09.06.2003. Aggrieved by same, petitioner filed instant writ petition seeking a direction to respondents to adhere to terms of original agreement dated 11.05.2001 with regard to payment to work in excess of quantities at tendered rate for items over the tendered percentage accepted by third respondent. Counter affidavit is filed by third respondent. This writ petition is opposed inter alia on the ground that dispute, if any, in relation to execution of works has to be resolved by arbitration and therefore, the writ petition would not lie. In addition to this, it is also mentioned that there is no price escalation in respect of works executed in deviated quantities in terms of conditions laid down in Agreement No.7/2001-02 dated 11.05.2001. It is also contended by respondent that when once petitioner agreed to complete works as per supplemental agreement, it is deemed that he has accepted the rates and therefore, he is not entitled to seek modification of rates. This Court heard learned counsel for petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Roads and Buildings. Both of them adhere to their position, as disclosed in pleadings. There is no dispute that question raised in writ petition pertains to interpretation of contract. The dispute, no doubt, has relation to contract or supplemental contract with regard to payment of modified rates to petitioner for supplemental works he completed in connection with main work under L.S.CR.Agreement No.7/2001-02 dated 11.05.2001. Learned counsel for petitioner relies on Preliminary Specifications (PS) 63 of A.P.D.S.S. The same is to the effect that contractor is bound to execute all supplemental items, which are found essential, incidental, and inevitable during execution of work, at the rates to be worked out and detailed below. It also provides that all items of work in excess of quantities shown in Schedule A of tender, the rates payable for such items shall be either tender rates or standard schedule of rates for the items of items plus or minus the over all tender percentage accepted by competent authority, whichever is less. In this case, admittedly, supplemental agreement does not stipulate any obligation on the part of Department to pay rates for supplemental works at excess percentage, as per the original agreement. Whether impliedly, such condition can be read into the main agreement is the question which has to be gone into before appropriate forum. As rightly pointed out by learned Government Pleader for Roads and Buildings, the agreement provides for arbitration and writ petition, which relates to payment of money for works completed by contractor, ordinarily, would not lie. If so advised, petitioner may have to seek appropriate remedy under arbitration clause. It is also brought to notice of this Court that as per PS 73, in case of any disputes or differences between parties to the contract, matter has to be referred to arbitration, if the value of dispute claimed is less than Rs.50,000/-. In this case, the value is more and therefore, petitioner has to seek remedy by filing a suit. In the event of such a suit being filed, the civil Court must decide the issue, without being influenced by observations made hereinabove. The writ petition, with the above observations, is accordingly disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________ (V.V.S.RAO, J) August 19, 2009. Bvv