HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION No.7277 of 2010 31st March 2010 Between: Guggilla Venkatratnam … PETITIONER(S) and The Project Director, I.T.D.A., Paderu, Visakhapatnam District and another … RESPONDENT(S) HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION No.7277 of 2010 ORDER: Heard Sri C.Hari Preeth, Learned counsel for the petitioner and the Learned Government Pleader for Social Welfare. At their request the Writ Petition is being disposed of at the stage of admission. The second respondent claims to be the absolute owner and to be in possession of the scheduled lands in Sy.Nos.11/1, 3, 4 and 12/3, 43 and 13, 14/2, 14/3 admeasuring Ac.29.83 cents situated at Rathulapet Village, Yenugurayi Panchayati, Munchingiput Mandal, Visakhapatnam District, and to have obtained permission of the first respondent to remove the trees grown in the said land. The petitioner would submit that the second respondent had obtained permission from the respective departments as the trees were causing shade to the coffee plantations and black pepper; the coffee plantations and black pepper required partial sunlight; and, since those trees were causing obstruction and covering the entire plantation area, an auction was held by the second respondent wherein the petitioner was the highest bidder. Consequently, an agreement was entered into between the petitioner and the second respondent on 09.06.2009. The agreement required the petitioner to deposit Rs.50,000/- on the date of agreement, and subsequently Rs.1,00,000/-, to cut the trees and remove them for transportation. The petitioner would submit that the said agreement is to expire only on 10.05.2010 and as such he can remove the trees grown on the said lands on or before that date. He would give reasons as to why there was a delay on his part in not executing the cut and remove operations and would contend that, since the agreement enabled him to cut all the trees on or before 10.05.2010, the notice issued by the second respondent, and the subsequent order of cancellation of the said agreement, were wholly illegal and contrary to the terms and conditions of the contract. The proceedings impugned in this writ petition is the letter addressed by the second respondent to the petitioner herein informing him that, since he had not started the work despite a lapse of five months, the agreement entered into on 09.06.2009 was being cancelled. The petitioner, in effect, seeks enforcement of the conditions of the agreement and to set aside the order of the second respondent cancelling the agreement. This Court would, ordinarily, not entertain non-statutory contractual disputes as these are matters better adjudicated in proceedings in a Civil Suit before a Civil Court of competent jurisdiction. As the petitioner, questions cancellation of a non-statutory contract, and seeks its enforcement, I see no reason to exercise discretion under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to entertain such a Writ Petition seeking such a relief. Leaving it open to the petitioner, if he so choses, to avail the remedy of filing a Civil suit before a Civil Court of competent jurisdiction, the writ petition fails and is, accordingly, dismissed. However, in the circumstances, without costs. _____________________________ RAMESH RANGANATHAN,J 31st March 2010 CVRK/MRKR