HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.11718 of 2011 Date:04.08.2011 Between: Dr.B.Ambedkar Harijana Labour Contract Co-Operative Society Limited, Reptd., by its Promoter-Komarapu Satya- Narayana, Mandapet, East Godavari District. ..... Petitioner AND The Commissioner, Mandapeta Municipality, East Godavari District And another. .....Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri T.G.Srivatsav Counsel for Respondents : Sri S.Nageswara Reddy, The Court made the following: ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a Mandamus to declare the action of respondent No.1 in not paying the admitted amount as per the monthly contract agreement, dated 22.02.2010, entered between the petitioner and respondent No.1 as illegal and arbitrary. The petitioner entered into contract with respondent No.1 for supply of private sanitary workers to Mandapeta Municipality during the year 2010-2011. According to the petitioner, the admitted amount of the contract is Rs.31,65,528/- at the rate of monthly admitted amount of Rs.2,63,784/-. The petitioner, on completion of the work, was in all paid Rs.19,49,732/-. According to the petitioner, the admitted contract amount being Rs.31,65,528/-, the respondents are liable to pay the balance amount. In the counter-affidavit filed by respondent No.1, it is inter alia stated that under the agreement the petitioner has undertaken to supply 44 labourers for which the value of contract was estimated at Rs.31,65,211/- for 12 months and that the petitioner has, in fact, not supplied the said number of workers and that, considering the actual number of workers supplied by the petitioner, the contract value was worked out and paid. Respondent No.1 has given details of the amount which was disallowed from April, 2010 to March, 2011 through a table given in the counter-affidavit. The petitioner filed a reply-affidavit controverting the above stand. In my opinion, ordinarily a Writ Petition for payment of money is not maintainable. Only in cases where the liability of the respondents is admitted or denied in a patently arbitrary manner that this Court exercises its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India even in cases of money disputes. But, in the instant case, the Writ Petition is filed on the premise that the respondents are not paying the admitted amounts, whereas the respondents have come out with the plea that all the admitted amounts are paid and that, what was withheld is only the disputed amount. In the face of this stand taken by the respondents, it is not appropriate for this Court to adjudicate upon this disputed question of fact. Therefore, while dismissing the Writ Petition, the petitioner is permitted to file a civil suit, if so advised, for recovery of the disputed amount. Learned counsel for the petitioner has stated that the respondents are not supplying a copy of the agreement along with its enclosures. To facilitate the petitioner to avail appropriate remedy, respondent No.1 is directed to supply to the petitioner the full set of the agreement along with its enclosures as and when the petitioner approaches him. As a sequel to dismissal of the writ petition, W.P.M.P.No.14316 of 2011 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is dismissed as infructuous. __________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 04th August, 2011 DR