HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.16829 of 2010 ORDER: The petitioner was awarded a contract for transport of sand from two quarries viz., Vempally and Chennur to the respective mines / bunkers by the Singareni Collieries Limited. The contract was entered into on 10-06-2009 and duration thereof is two years. The rate of supply of sand from Vempally Quarry is Rs.55/- per cubic meter, and from Chennur Quarry is Rs.171/- per cubic meter. 2. Differences arose between the petitioner and the respondents as to the viability to transport sand from Vempally Quarry. Ultimately, the contract for this quarry was cancelled, even while, continuing the contract pertaining to Chennur Quarry. 3. The contract in respect of the Vempally quarry was awarded in favour of a third party at a higher rate. The respondents are deducting the difference of the rate of transport from Vempally quarry from the bills of the petitioner for the work done at Chennur quarry. The same is challenged in this writ petition. 4. Heard Sri S. Satyam Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Nandigam Krishna Rao, learned counsel for the respondents. 5. Out of the two items of contract awarded to the petitioner for transport of sand, one pertaining to Vempally Quarry was terminated. While invoking their right under a clause in the contract, the respondents are deducting the differential amount from the bills payable to the petitioner for transporting the sand from Chennur Quarry. The question as to whether there was justification for the respondents in cancelling their contract with the petitioner for transporting the sand from Vempally Quarry and whether they are entitled to deduct the differential amount, on awarding the same contract to a third party at higher rate cannot be decided in this writ petition. It needs not only interpretation of terms of contract, but, also appreciation of evidence, which both the parties may adduce on the relevant facts and issues. If there exists any facility of arbitration between the parties, that can be resorted to. If no such facility exists, the petitioner has to approach a Civil Court. 6. Hence, the Writ Petition is disposed of, directing that it shall be open to the petitioner to work out its rights vis-à-vis the respondents either by invoking the arbitration clause, if any, or by approaching a Civil Court. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J. March 25, 2011. KTL