THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION No.10831 of 2004 DATED 18.08.2009 BETWEEN: P.Srinivasa Reddy and another … Petitioners AND The Executive Engineer, R&B (Roads), Erramanjil, Hyderabad and others. … Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITON NO.10831 OF 2004 ORDER: The first petitioner was entrusted work of improvement of Annaram Village to Kesamudram Village road from KM 6/0 to 10/0 in Warangal District under Food For Work (FFW) vide agreement dated 20.06.2003. The second petitioner was awarded the work of road improvement programme on the same road from KM 1/4 to 6/0 under FFW vide agreement dated 17.06.2002. The programme contemplates payment for the works granted under FFW is 50% of the value of the work in cash and balance 50% represents labour component in the form of rice. Petitioners engaged labour and paid wages to them (rice component) calculating at Rs.5.65 per kilogram (kg). Rice, which was allotted to petitioners for execution of works, was distributed to workers. After completion of works, when petitioners were to be paid, fourth respondent raised an objection with regard to price of rice for the purpose of calculation. According to fourth respondent, the rice component supplied has to be calculated at Rs.8.00 per kg and bills were withheld. It appears Government issued G.O.Ms.No.916, dated 14.11.2002 fixing the price of rice at Rs.8.00 per kg. Therefore, petitioners filed instant writ petition seeking a writ of Mandamus declaring the action of respondents in seeking to calculate value of rice supply under FFW at Rs.8.00 per kg in stead of Rs.5.65 per kg as illegal and arbitrary. This Court heard learned counsel for petitioners and learned Government Pleader for R&B Department. The question raised in this writ petition is no more res integra. A Division Bench of this Court in an unreported Judgment in Executive Engineer v M/s.Venkata Sai Constructions (W.A.No.1154 of 2004, dated 19.08.2004) considered similar writ petition. While reversing the Judgment of learned single Judge, Division Bench held that FFW guidelines are meant for authorities concerned and they do not confer any enforceable right upon contractors. The relevant observations made therein are as follows. We have given our anxious consideration to the rival submissions made. We find it difficult to sustain the order passed by the learned signle Judge for more than one reason. Fristly, this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot issue directions and that too at the stage of admission which are in the nature of money decree. The case on hand is not one where there is no dispute between the parties. The parties are at variance as to at which rate the writ petitioner is entitled to payment so far as labour component is concerned. Such disputed questions of fact cannot be satisfactorily gone into in a public law remedy. We are in complete agreement with the learned Government Pleader that such orders cannot be passed by this Court even at the admission stage. Admittedly, the dispute between the parties arises out of a concluded contract. The contract undertaken by the petitioner itself is subject to such terms and conditions which are mutually agreed upon and incorporated in the agreement. The contract between the parteis is not a statutory contract. The dispute essentially is in the realm of private law remedy. It is not the question of jurisdiction but is one of exercise of jurisdiction. Learned counsel for the writ petitioner may be right to some extent in contending that this Court is not without jurisdiction to entertain the writ petition but as we have observed it is a case of exercise of jurisdiction. The dispute between the parties is required to be resolved in a properly constituted proceedings in accordance with the terms and conditions of agreement entered into by and between the parteis. The memorandum dated 27.10.2001 issued by the Government is in the nature of guidelines meant for the authorities concerned and it does not confer any enforceable right upon the writ petitioner. Following the Judgment of Division Bench, the writ petition is dismissed giving liberty to petitioners to raise the dispute before proper forum. No costs. _______________ (V.V.S.RAO, J) 18.08.2009 pln