HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO WRIT PETITION No.21244 of 2010 Date:08.9.2010 Between: M/s.Ashirwad Steels & Industries Ltd., Sponge Iron Davison (A.P) Registered Under Companies Act. Rajendra Nagar, Nalgonda. ……….Petitioner. And General Manager, Sought Central Railway, Secunderabad and others. ………Respondents. HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO WRIT PETITION No.21244 of 2010 ORDER: Heard Sri K.Narasimha Chary, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri T.S.Venkata Ramana, learned Standing Counsel for Railways appearing for the respondents. Though this writ petition has been instituted seeking a writ of mandamus directing the respondents i.e., Sr. D.C.M., and Station Master, Chityal to release 764.21 Mts. Coal detained by them from 15.4.2010 since their authority to seize the same was set aside by this Court by order dated 9.7.2010, however, in view of the subsequent developments that have taken place, which were brought to my notice today by the learned counsel for the writ petitioner, Sri K.Narasimha Chary, it would not require me of pronouncing any opinion on merits. Sri K.Narasimha Chary has pointed out that though this Court has decided W.P.No.13415 of 2010 on 9.7.2010, however, the respondents have taken their own time to intimate the permission for lifting the stock (coal) by the writ petitioner only on 29.8.2010. Thereafter, the writ petitioner has lifted the stock from Railway premises at Chityal. The writ petitioner, according to the learned counsel for the writ petitioner, has got the stocks so lifted weighed and then noticed that a little more than 189 Mts., was found to be short, and hence, the writ petitioner has suffered loss and damage, all due to the unauthorized actions of the respondents. Since the disputed questions of fact involed are incapable of being resolved in a writ proceedings it is only appropriate that the parties must take recourse to resolution of such disputes through the process of Civil Court, so as to enable both parties to lead proper and relevant evidence on either side. It is therefore, left open to the writ petitioner to sue the respondents and recover the damages said to have been sustained by him. No further orders are needed to be passed in this writ petition. Therefore, the writ petition is accordingly disposed of. No order as to costs. ___________________________ Justice Nooty Ramamohana Rao Date:21.1.2009 Note: Furnish CC within tree days. B/O mrb