IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No. 22394 of 2006 Between: V. Lakman, Proprietor, M/s. Anusha Enterprises, Flat No.10, Suguna Appartments, Ameerpet, Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Collector & District Magistrate, Karimnagar District, Karimnagar. 2 Gram Panchayat, Chellur, Veevankana Mandal, Karimnagar District, rep.by its Sarpanch. .....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 issue a Writ, or Direction or order, particularly one in the nature of Mandamus directing the First respondent to consider petitioner representation dated 21.7.2006 and consequently issue directions to the Second respondent herein to settle the bills bearing (i) Bill No.30 dated 2.9.2005 in sum of Rs.50,000/- and (ii) Bill No.33 dated 29.9.2005 in sum of Rs.45,000/- pending with the Gram Panchayat, Chellur, Veevankana Mandal, Karimnagar District, and pass such further order or orders. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.Y.N.VIVEKANANDA Counsel for the Respondents: MR.G.ELISHA The Court made the following ORDER: The Gram Pahchayat, Chellur, Karimnagar District, the second respondent herein, placed orders upon the petitioner on 20.08.2005 for supply of certain electrical items. The petitioner claims to have supplied the items and submitted bills for payment of the amount. It is stated that one bill, dated 02.09.2005, for a sum of Rs.1,30,000/- was cleared, whereas the balance amount for the goods supplied by the petitioner has not been paid. He seeks appropriate directions in this regard. The second respondent ﬁled a counter-aﬃdavit, admitting the fact that it placed orders on the petitioner for supply of certain electrical items. It is, however, pleaded that the petitioner supplied substandard items and the Gram Panchayat had sustained huge loss on account of the same. It is stated that the second respondent is not liable to pay any amount and on the other hand, it is entitled to recover certain amount from the petitioner. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the Gram Panchayat. It is, no doubt, true that this Court entertains writ petitions in matters of this nature also and directs payment of the unpaid bills. That, however, would be possible only when there is no controversy or dispute as to the liability of the agency, which procured the goods. In the instant case, there is a serious dispute as to the nature of goods supplied by the petitioner as well as the liability of the second respondent to pay the amount. The petitioner has already been paid a sum of Rs.1,30,000/- and the question as to whether he is entitled to be paid further amount can eﬀectively be decided in a suit. The petitioner can avail that remedy. Inasmuch as the petitioner has been pursuing the remedies before this Court, the cause of action for ﬁling a suit can be treated as the date on which the counter-aﬃdavit has been filed, namely 07.09.2007. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of, leaving it open to the petitioner to avail the remedy of ﬁling a suit. There shall be no order as to costs. ___________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY,J Dt:17.09.2008. Note: Issue cc in three days. kdl