THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V ESWARAIAH THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE G KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY WRIT APPEAL NOs. 593, 595 of 2011 and WA No. 809 OF 2011 DT.29.9.2011 Between: National Institute of Technology, Warangal … Petitioner And NCC Limited Hyderabad and others … Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri A.Venkataramana Counsel for respondent no.1: Sri S.Niranjan Reddy The Court made the following ORDER: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V ESWARAIAH THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE G KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY WRIT APPEAL NOs. 593, 595 of 2011 and WA No. 809 OF 2011 COMMON JUDGMENT : (Per Sri Justice V Eswaraiah) Since all these three appeals are among the same parties and are connected, they are being disposed of by this common order. These appeals are filed against common orders of the learned single Judge dated 25.3.2011 in W.P. Nos. 7921, 7927 and 7928 of 2011. It is stated that the writ petitioner/first respondent herein entered into various agreements with the appellant/National Institute of Technology, Warangal in agreement No. 17/2007-2008 dated 18.6.2007 for construction of halls of residence for 1000 students and kitchen cum dining hall at the campus, in agreement No. 40/2008-09 dated 18.8.2008 for construction of halls or residence for 1600 students having G+9 structure including internal and external water supply, road, work, and electrical installation at the campus and agreement no.08/2009-10 dated 21.5.2009 for construction of centre for innovation and incubation building. According to the writ petitioner/first respondent, on completion of the works the appellant has issued ‘Final Completion Certificate’ in respect of the above works on different dates and on submission of the bills, the same were not cleared and the amounts were not paid. That the writ petitioner/first respondent has made several representation requesting for release of payment but the same were not considered nor disposed of and no reply was given, therefore, the above three writ petitions were filed and the learned single Judge by order dated 25.3.2011 disposed of the writ petitions directing the first respondent to consider the representation dated 5.4.2010 submitted by the petitioner and take necessary steps within four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the said order. Aggrieved by the said common order, the National Institute of Technology, Warangal filed the present appeals contending that the writ petitions are not maintainable with regard to the contractual matters and as per the agreement, the writ petitioner/first respondent herein has to approach the competent Civil Court for resolution of the dispute seeking appropriate relief. The learned counsel for writ petitioner/first respondent herein submitted that writ petitions are maintainable even in respect of the contractual matters and relied on the judgments of the Supreme Court in ABL INTERNATIONAL LTD AND ANOTHER Vs. EXPORT CREDIT GUARANTEE CORPORATION OF INDIA LIMITED AND OTHERS[1] and FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER Vs. SEIL LIMITED AND OTHERS[2]. The Supreme Court in ABL International Ltd case (cited supra) held as under; “( 27 ) From the above discussion of ours, following legal principles emerge as to the maintainability of a writ petition :- (a) In an appropriate case, a writ petition as against a State or an instrumentality of a State arising out of a contractual obligation is maintainable. (b) Merely because some disputed questions of facts arise for consideration, same cannot be a ground to refuse to entertain a writ petition in all cases as a matter of rule. (c) A writ petition involving a consequential relief of monetary claim is also maintainable. The Supreme Court in Food Corporation of India case held as under; “It is now no longer res integra that contractual disputes involving public law element are amenable to writ jurisdiction. In these cases, the Central Government not only scrutinized the bills but also verified the claims of the respondents. A direction was issued to make payment. Appellant, which is a 'state' within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India, withheld payment without any legal justification.” In view of the aforesaid law laid down by the Supreme Court, it cannot be said that the directions issued by the learned Single Judge directing the first respondent/appellant herein to consider the representations of the writ petitioners, are illegal, warranting any interference. Further, though the writ petitions are filed to declare the action of the respondents/appellants herein in not releasing the amounts for the work done as illegal, the relief granted by the learned single Judge is only directing it to consider the representation of the writ petitioner/first respondent herein. The order of the learned single Judge is very innocuous, therefore, we do not see any reason to interfere with the same. Accordingly, the writ appeals are dismissed. No costs. _____________ V ESWARAIAH,J ________________________ G KRISHNA MONAH REDDY,J DATE: 29.9.2011 TVK THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V ESWARAIAH THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE G KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY WRIT APPEAL NOs. 593, 595 of 2011 and WA No. 809 OF 2011 DT.8.8.2011 [1] 2004 (3) SCC 553 [2] 2008 (3) SCC 440