IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH, AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) PRESENT: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY FRIDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF MARCH, TWO THOUSAND EIGHT ONLY WRIT PETITION No.3268 of 2008 Between: Ratna Infracture Projects Pvt. Ltd., (Formerly known as Ratna Constructions), reptd.,. by its GPA Holder- G.Damodar Reddy, Plot No.25, Navanirman Nagar, Road No.71, Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad. … Petitioner AND The State of Andhra Pradesh, reptd., by its Secretary, I & CAD Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad and three others. … Respondents Counsel for the petitioner: Sri B.Vijaysen Reddy. Counsel for the respondents: Asst. G.P. for Irrigation for R.1 to R.3. This Court made the following: ORDER:- This Writ Petition is filed for a Writ of Mandamus to declare the action of respondent No.3 in addressing letter dated 30-1-2008 to the Branch Manager of UTI Bank Ltd., Begumpet Branch, respondent No.4 herein, to invoke Bank Guarantee bearing Nos.008010000/1341,dated 5-12-2005, as illegal and arbitrary. Heard Sri B. Vijaysen Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record. The impugned letter has been issued by respondent No.3 while exercising his powers under a concluded contract between the petitioner and respondents 1 to 3. In my considered view, the petitioner is not entitled to invoke the public law remedy by filing a Writ Petition to restrain the respondents from encashing the Bank Guarantee under the terms of a non-statutory contract. The petitioner is entitled to avail remedies under the terms of the agreement or as are available under common law, as the case may be. This view of mine is further reinforced by the fact that while exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, it is not possible for this Court to adjudicate the disputed questions of fact. One other reason for this Court’s disinclanation to interfere with the matter is, at the hearing Sri B.Vijaysen Reddy, fairly stated that the petitioner paid the amount covered by the Bank Guarantee without prejudice to its right. For the above-mentioned reasons, the Writ Petition is dismissed. The petitioner is given liberty to avail its remedies available under law. ------------------------------------ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY,J 28-3-2008 MNR