THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY Writ Petition Nos.25784, 25799 and 25800 of 2011 Dated 15th September, 2011 Between: M.A.Waheed Engineers & Contractors …Petitioner (W.P.No.25784 of 2011) And The Chief Engineer, Jawaharlal Nehru Building, Municipal Corporation, Vijayawada and another …Respondents (W.P.No.25784 of 2011) Counsel for the petitioner: Sri S.Niranjan Reddy Counsel for respondent Nos.1 & 2: Smt.G.Jhansi The Court made the following: COMMON ORDER: These three writ petitions raise common issues. Hence, they are heard and being disposed of together by this common order. The petitioners were entrusted with execution of work relating to laying drainage pipeline under separate agreements. During the course of execution of work, having regard to the site conditions requiring excavation of drainage line across the railway tracks, a technology which was called jack system and which was not envisaged in the contracts was suggested and the same was adopted. On the ground that this is a new item different from the one provided under the contracts, fresh tenders have been called for instead of accepting the petitioners’ offer to execute the work on nomination basis. It is the plea of the petitioners that under clause 39.3.1 of the agreements, they have a right to be entrusted with the said item of work. After hearing Sri S.Niranjan Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners, and Smt.G.Jhansi, learned Standing Counsel for the Vijayawada Municipal Corporation, I am of the opinion that the disputes raised by the petitioners arise under and in connection with the concluded contracts. The law is well settled that ordinarily such disputes are required to be adjudicated by the common law Courts or through arbitration in the event the agreements contain adjudication of disputes through such arbitration (see State of U.P. v. Bridge & Roof Co. (India) Ltd.,[1] a n d Radha Krishna Agarwal v. State of Bihar[2]). Having regard to the above settled legal position, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the decision of the respondents by entertaining these writ petitions and the same are accordingly dismissed. The petitioners are left free to avail appropriate remedy available to them in law. As a sequel to dismissal of the writ petitions, W.P.M.P.Nos.31796, 31814 and 31815 of 2011 are disposed of as infructuous. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 15th September, 2011 VGB [1] (1996) 6 SCC 22 [2] AIR 1977 SC 1496