IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND FIVE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM WRIT PETITION NOs : 18763, 18764, 18765, 18766,18767,18768 and 18769 of 2005 WRIT PETITION NO : 18763 of 2005 Between: M/s. K. Chinna Rao & Co., Door No.22-5-1/1, Vampalla Nagar, Near Samata nagar, Peda Gantyada, Visakhapatnam-530044,rep. by its Prop. K. Chinna Rao, S/o. Sanyasi Appalanaidu, 42 Years. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Chief Superintendent( Operation), Sinter Plant (W), Visakhapatnam Steel Plant, Visakhapatnam. 2 The Dy. General Manager ( Safety), Safety Engineering Department, Visakhapatnam Steel Plant, Visakhapatnam. ...RESPONDENTS WRIT PETITION NO : 18764 of 2005 Between: M/s. Aruna Constructions, Door No.12-210, Nallimukku, Peda Gantyada, Visakhapatnam-530044 Rep.by its Prop. M.Eswara Rao S/o. Suri Naidu, ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Chief Superintendent (OPeration), Sinter Plant (W), Visakhapatnam Steel Plant, Visakhapatnam. 2 The Dy. General Manager (Safety), Safety Engineering Department, Visakhapatnam, Steel Plant, Visakhapatnam. .....RESPONDENTS WRIT PETITION NO : 18765 of 2005 Between: M/s.United Freight Carrying Corporation, Peda Gangyada, Visakhapatnam-530 044, rep., by its Manager M.Balarama Murthy, s/o Subba Rao, ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Chief Superintendent (Operation), Sinter Plant (W), Visakhapatnam Steel Plant, Visakhapatnam. 2 The Deputy General Manager (Safety), Safety Engineering Department, Visakhapatnam steel Plant, Visakhapatnam. .....RESPONDENTS WRIT PETITION NO : 18766 of 2005 Between: M/s.Reddy Enterprises, Parwada Junction, NearKali Temple, Visakhapatnam- 530021. Rep by its Prop.P.Rambabau, S/o.Appalaswamy, 45 Yrs. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Chief Superintendent (Operation), Sinter Plant (W), Visakhapatnam Steel Palnt, Visakhapatnam. 2 The Dy.General Manager (Safety), Safety Engineering Department, Visakhapatnam Steel Palnt, Visakhapatnam. .....RESPONDENTS WRIT PETITION NO : 18767 of 2005 Between: M/s Pragada Papayya and Co, Door No.30-77-10, Kanti Village,, Vadlapudi RHC, Visakhapatnam rep by its Prop.P.Srinivasulu, S/o.Papayya . ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Chief Superintendent (operation), Sinter Plan (W), Visakhapatnam Steel Plant, Visakhapatnam. 2 The Dy.General Manager (Safety) Safety Engineering Department, Visakhapatnam Steel Plant Visakhapatnam. .....RESPONDENTS WRIT PETITION NO : 18768 of 2005 Between: M/s. Jahnavi Constructions, Door No.21-54-51, Peda Koreda, Peda Gantyada, R.H.Colony, Visakhapatnam-530044, rep. by its Pro: Ch. Gowri Naidu, S/o. Pentam Naidu, 39 Years. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Chief Superintendent ( Operation), Sinter Plant(W), Visakhapatnam Steel Plant, Visakhapatnam. 2 The Dy. General Manager ( Safety), Safety Engineering Department, Visakhapatnam Steel Plant, Visakhapatnam. .....RESPONDENTS WRIT PETITION NO : 18769 of 2005 Between: M/s. M. Ganga Raju & Co., Door No. 23-64-6, Dayal Nagar, B.C. Road, Rep. by its Mg. Partner M. Ganga Raju S/o. Late Appanna, age 51 yrs, ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Chief Superintendent (Operation) Sinter Plant (W) Visakhapatnam Steel Plant, Visakhapatnam, 2 The Dy. General Manager (Safety) Safety Engineering Department, Visakhapatnam Steel Plant, Visakhapatnam, .....RESPONDENTS THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM WRIT PETITION NOs : 18763, 18764, 18765, 18766,18767,18768 and 18769 of 2005 COMMON ORDER: All the petitioners have entered into several contractual relationships with the Visakhapatnam Steel Plant for undertaking cleaning-cum-spillage arresting jobs in bunkers of RB and RMB of sinter plant. Work Orders had also been issued to the petitioners. The several petitioners contend that according to Clause 13(e) of the Work Order, a safety clearance from the safety Engineering Department of VSP is required before commencement of work; that the several petitioners as contractors had applied for safety passes for enabling their workmen to enter into the plant for executing their contracts; that these applications are pending but no safety passes were yet issued; and that thus, the petitioners are effectively prevented from executing the works. While so, the Chief Superintendent (Operation), Sinter Plant (W) Visakhapatnam Steel Plant has issued a notice dated 10.08.2005 calling upon the petitioners to start the works immediately as per the contract and Clause 10 of the work order, failing which the respondents will be constrained to initiate action as deemed appropriate. This notice by the first respondent in the several Writ petitions recorded that the petitioners had not started the work even 10 days after the award of the work order and that the work is thereby suffering. The petitioners’ complaint is that they could not start the work as safety passes were not issued despite applications. In response to the notice dated 10.08.2005, the petitioners submitted explanations on 16.08.2005 and now apprehend that without a rational consideration of their explanation or the non performance of the reciprocal obligations under the contract by the respondents, the respondents would highhandedly and in arbitrary exercise of contractual powers would terminate the contracts of the petitioners. No orders of termination have been issued. The petitioners assail the notices. The contracts that the petitioners have with the respondent-Visakhapatnam Steel Plant are non statutory contracts. The disputes they have, as urged in the writ petitions are disputes that have arisen under such contracts. The relationship is contractual and the disputes post contractual which do not have adjudicative disposition before this court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India - vide M/s. Radhakrishna Agarwal and others v. State of Bihar and others. On the application of the aforesaid position of law, the appropriate recourse for the petitioners is to approach the Civil Court of Jurisdiction or an arbitrator, if there be an arbitration clause in the contract. This Court is not inclined to adjudicate upon the contractual disputes, in view of the availability of an equally efficacious alternative remedy. The writ petitions are dismissed at the stage of admission. The petitioners are at liberty to pursue the appropriate remedy. No costs. ____________ 24-08-2005 Note : CC tomorrow B/o kvrm