IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE FIFTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 11783 of 2005 Between: M.Sudershan Reddy, s/o Narayana Reddy, r/o Sivalapalli Village, Chennur Mandal, Kadapa District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Superintending Engineer, R.W.S.(Rural Water Supply) Circle, Kadapa, Kadapa District. 2 The Executive Engineer, R.W.S.(Rural Water Supply) Division, Kadapa,Kadapa District. .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.L.J.VEERA REDDY Counsel for the Respondents: AGP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ & RURAL DEV. The Court made the following : ORDER: This writ petition is ﬁled for a writ of Mandamus to declare the inaction of the respondents in disposing of the representation dated 11.04.2005 for payment of ﬁnal bill of agreement No.23/1997-98 dated 28.05.1997 for Rs.1,15,805/- along with interest. 2. The dispute raised in this writ petition pertains to the question whether the petitioner is entitled for payment of higher amount for extra work said to have been executed on account of less soil bearing capacity of the site over which the work was executed. The case of the petitioner is that while the estimate was made taking the site as having 10 tonnes/sq. mt. of soil bearing capacity, but during the execution, it was found that the actual soil bearing capacity was only 5 tonnes/sq. mt., which required higher reinforcement and strengthening of the soil consuming more material such as sand, steel, cement etc. apart from the additional labour. The further case of the petitioner is that during the course of execution, he was paid higher amounts, but the said amount has been withheld under the ﬁnal bill. 3. At the hearing, Sri L.J.Veera Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that in reply to the legal notice, dated 11.04.2005, got issued by the petitioner, the Executive Engineer gave his reply on 30.08.2008 wherein he rejected the petitioner’s claim for extra payment. A copy of the said letter is ﬁled along with the counter aﬃdavit. Since the grievance projected in this writ petition is limited to non-disposal of the petitioner’s representation, the said grievance does not any longer subsist, in view of disposal of the said representation, albeit after more than three years of submission of representation/issuance of legal notice by the petitioner. 4. Therefore, the writ petition is dismissed as infructuous, without going into the merits of the claim of the petitioner and with liberty to the petitioner to ﬁle a civil suit, which in the view of this Court is the only appropriate remedy for him to question the rejection of his claim arising under a commercial contract, pure and simple. ________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY,J 5th September, 2008 v v