*THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY +WRIT PETITION No.6683 of 2011 % 16-11-2011 # Kona Raghupathi. … Petitioner Vs. $ The Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, represented by its Vice-Chairman- Cum-Managing Director, APSRTC, RTC X roads, Hyderabad and others. … Respondents ! Counsel for the petitioner: Sri P.S.Rajasekhar for Sri S.Venkateswara Rao ^ Counsel for the respondents: Sri K.Satyanarayana. < Gist: > Head Note: ? Cases referred: 1. (2004) 3 SCC 553 2. (2000) 6 SCC 293 3. (1994) 3 SCC 552 4. (1996) 6 SCC 22 5. (2000) 3 SCC 379 6. (2008) 8 SCC 172 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) PRESENT: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WEDNESDAY, THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER, TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN WRIT PETITION No.6683 of 2011 Between: Kona Raghupathi. … Petitioner And The Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, represented by its Vice-Chairman- Cum-Managing Director, APSRTC, RTC X roads, Hyderabad and others. … Respondents Counsel for the petitioner: Sri P.S.Rajasekhar for Sri S.Venkateswara Rao Counsel for the respondents: Sri K.Satyanarayana. This Court made the following: ORDER:- This Writ Petition is filed for a Mandamus to declare the action of the respondents in not permitting the petitioner to utilize the 30 feet approach road on the Eastern side of the property leased out to him by the respondents under “Build, Operate and Transfer Scheme” as illegal and arbitrary. The petitioner entered into a “Development, Construction, Operation and Management Agreement” (for short “the Agreement”) on 21-6-2006 with the respondent-Corporation, under which an extent of 2139 square meters of land belonging to respondent No.1 and situated at the Bus Station, Bapatla, was handed over to the petitioner for the purpose of construction of petrol outlet and restaurant. Accordingly, the petitioner has constructed the petrol outlet and a building, which is being used as a hotel and convention centre. The petitioner felt aggrieved by the action of the respondents in seeking to prevent him from using the 30 feet road running from South to North abutting the hotel and the convention centre on the Eastern side. According to the petitioner, the 30 feet (10 meters) wide approach road is meant for catering to the needs of the site developed by the petitioner as well as another site, which is situated abutting the said site on the North, described as North-West block in the sketch enclosed to the Agreement. It is the plea of the respondents, as reflected from their counter-affidavit, that the 30 feet (10 meter) wide approach road is meant for providing access to the North-West block as indicated in the sketch as it has no other access; and that the petitioner has access to the main road leading to Chirala on the Southern side and also another road on the Western side. Sri P.S.Rajasekhar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, strenuously contended that the Agreement defined the site as 2139 square meters of land at bus station, Bapatla (South-West Block) as shown in the schedule. He further submitted that the schedule has marked the road on the Eastern side of the demised premises with the description “10 meters wide approach”. According to the learned counsel, the schedule has included the 10 meter wide approach road, which shall be deemed to form part of the site as defined in the Agreement. The learned counsel further submitted that the definition of ‘project’ in Clause 2.1 of the Agreement included the design, construction and maintenance of buildings, support structures, roads, approaches or facilities and that, therefore, the approach shown in the schedule forms part of the project. As noted earlier, it is the pleaded case of the respondents that this 10 meter wide road is intended to cater to the need of the North-West Block as approach to it and that the same is not meant as approach to the petitioner. The petitioner’s right stems from a concluded contract. Necessarily, therefore, the petitioner’s right is dependant on the interpretation of the terms of the contract. The Law is well settled that ordinarily a dispute arising under a non-statutory contract is not entertained by this court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of Constitution of India. Unless it is demonstrated that the action of the State or its instrumentalities, who are parties to a non-statutory contract, is so patently arbitrary or the same is in blatant violation of the clauses of the Agreement, this Court seldom interferes with the disputes arising under such contracts. (See the decisions of the Supreme Court in ABL International Ltd., Vs. Export Credit Guarantee Corporation of India Ltd[1]). In Kerala State Electricity Board Vs. Kurien E. Kalathil[2] the Supreme Court held that the interpretation and implementation of a clause in a contract cannot be the subject matter of a Writ Petition; and that if a term of a contract is violated, ordinarily the remedy is not the Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In State of Gujarat Vs. Meghji Pethraj Shah Charitable Trust[3] the Supreme Court, while declining to interfere with the termination of contract, held that if the dispute arises under a non-statutory contract, the Writ Petition is not maintainable since it is a public law remedy and the same is not available in private law field. In State of U.P. Vs. Bridge & Roof Co. (India) Ltd[4], India Thermal Power Ltd., Vs. State of M.P.[5] and Pimpri Chinchwad Municipal Corporation Vs. Gayatri Construction Co.[6] the same view is reiterated. In the present case, there is no clause from which the petitioner can contend with certainty that he is given right to use the approach road in dispute. Even though the schedule appended to the contract has shown a 10 meter wide approach road, there is a serious dispute as to whether the said approach road is exclusively meant for North-West Block site or the same can be used by the petitioner as well. In the absence of any clause, which in unequivocal terms conferred a right on the petitioner to use the said approach road, the dispute will be required to be adjudicated with the aid of the evidence that may be adduced by both the parties as to their intention and understanding qua the right of the petitioner to use the approach road. Such a course is possible only if the dispute is raised before and adjudicated by the competent Civil Court on appreciation of evidence. As this court feels that the civil suit is the appropriate remedy, it refrains from expressing any opinion on the various contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner and noted hereinbefore on the interpretation of various clauses of the contract, lest it may be likely to prejudice the interests of either of the parties. In the premises as above, while declining to adjudicate the Writ Petition on merits, the petitioner is relegated to the common law remedy of a civil suit to be filed before the competent Civil Court. Since an interim order has been granted pending the Writ Petition, in order to protect the interest of the petitioner till such time as he avails the above mentioned remedy, status quo as on today shall be maintained for a period of two months in respect of the use of the approach road by the petitioner. Subjects to the above directions, the Writ Petition is disposed of. As a sequel to disposal of the Writ Petition, WPMP No.8320 of 2011 is disposed of as infructuous. ------------------------------------ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY,J Date:16-11-2011 MNR LR copies to be marked. [1] (2004) 3 SCC 553 [2] (2000) 6 SCC 293 [3] (1994) 3 SCC 552 [4] (1996) 6 SCC 22 [5] (2000) 3 SCC 379 [6] (2008) 8 SCC 172