IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION NO : 28051 of 2005 Between: M/s.F.N.Constructions, rep.by its Managing Partner Mr.Amjad Ali having their office at D.No.10-05-23/3, Masab Tank, Hyderabad ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep.by its Principal Secretary, Women Development & Child Welfare Dept., Secretariat Building, Saifabad, Hyderabad 2 The Director/Commissioner, Women Development & Child Welfare, Yousufguda, Hyderabad .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Aﬃdavit ﬁled herein the High Court will be pleased to to issue a writ more particuarly one in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents herein to pay an amount of Rs.10,11,428/- after deducting advance income tax of Rs.16,539/- and the deducted amount comes to Rs.9,94,835/- along with 24% interest from the date of completion of the work till the date of full payment and pass such other and further orders as are just and necessary in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.MIRZA NISAR AHMED BAIG Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR WOMEN DEV. & CHILD WELFARE The Court made the following Order: THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION No.28051 of 2005 ORDER: M/s. F.N. Constructions, a ﬁrm of contractors, was entrusted with civil work at the oﬃce of the Director and Commissioner, Women Development & Child Welfare, Hyderabad, second respondent herein. The estimated value of the work was about Rs.10,00,000/-. The petitioner allegedly completed the work in 2001. According to the petitioner, second respondent sent bills to the Pay and Accounts Oﬃce (PAO) for Rs.7,21,457/-. As against these bills a cheque for the said amount dated 27.03.2002 was also sent to second respondent but the same was not handedover to the petitioner. The petitioner alleges that he purchased the construction material on credit basis and that due to nonpayment of bills he is not able to pay the dues. He sent a registered notice dated 28.06.2004 to the respondents under Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) demanding a sum of Rs.9,94,835/- Second respondent ﬁled a counter-aﬃdavit on behalf of the respondents. The writ petition is opposed stating that the petitioner did not complete the work and that though the cheque for Rs.7,21,457/- was obtained from PAO during March, 2002, due to closure of ﬁnancial year the same was not paid. It is also stated that second respondent addressed a letter dated 21.08.2004 to ﬁrst respondent for according sanction for the amount of Rs.10,11,428/- subject to the satisfaction/completion of work and check measurement. It is alleged that the petitioner did not cooperate for the check measurement and the work completed. This Court heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Women Development and Child Welfare. Leaned counsel for the petitioner lays emphasis on the amount drawn by second respondent after submitting bills in March, 2002. He also contends that when there was dispute regarding completion of work or payment of bills to the petitioner, there would not have been any necessity for second respondent to address letter dated 21.08.2004 to the Government for sanction of Rs.10,11,428/- to be paid to the petitioner. These contentions are refuted by learned Government Pleader. The petitioner ﬁled instant writ petition seeking a writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to pay an amount of Rs.10,11,428/- after deducting advance income tax. The petitioner actually and factually is seeking decree for the amount allegedly payable by second respondent. Such a writ petition would not lie. It would have been diﬀerent thing if the petitioner had sought for declaration about alleged illegal action of the respondents and sought consequential direction for payment of money. When such a relief with consequential direction is not prayed a writ would not lie. This is well settled. A reference may be made to the Constitutional Bench of the Apex Court in Suganmal v. State of M.P.[1]. Relevant portion reads as under. We, therefore, hold that normally petitions solely praying for the refund of money against the State by a writ of mandamus are not to be entertained. The aggrieved party has the right of going to the civil Court for claiming the amount and it is open to the State to raise all possible defences to the claim, defences which cannot, in most cases be appropriately raised and considered in the exercise of writ jurisdiction. In view of the binding dicta of the Apex Court, this writ petition cannot be entertained. Even otherwise when there is dispute regarding completion of the work or regarding payment of the money by the Government, a writ is not ordinarily maintainable. A reference may be made to Salonah Tea Co. Ltd v Supdt. Of Taxes, Nowgong[2], U.P. Pollution Control Board v Kanoria Industrial Ltd[3] and ABL International Ltd v Export Credit Guarantee Corpn. Of India Ltd[4]. Furthermore the petitioner has already issued notice under Section 80 CPC informing the respondents that he will institute a suit after expiry of statutory period under Section 80 CPC. If so advised, the petitioner may seek redressal in a civil Court. The writ petition, with the above observations, is accordingly dismissed. No costs. _____________ (V.V.S.RAO, J) 20th October, 2008 GHN To 1 Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep.by its Principal Secretary, Women Development & Child Welfare Dept., Secretariat Building, Saifabad, Hyderabad 2 The Director/Commissioner, Women Development & Child Welfare, Yousufguda, Hyderabad 3 2CCs to GP for women development and child welfare 4 2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{TRK} [1] AIR 1965 SC 1740 [2] (1988) 1 SCC 401 [3] (2001) 2 SCC 549 [4] (2004) 3 SCC 553