IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 24772 of 2002 Between: M/s. B. Seenaiah & Company (Projects ) Ltd., Rep.by its Director Sri P.S. Reddy, S/o. Pulla Reddy, H.No.6-2-913/914, 5th Floor, Progressive Towers, Khairatabad, Hyderabad - 500 004. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Engineer in Chief (R & B), Administration and EAP, Erramanzil, Hyderabad. 2 The Executive Engineer (R & B), Nandyal, Kurnool District. 3 The Pay & Accounts Officer, Kurnool, Kurnool District. 4 The Superintending Engineer, R & B Circle, Kurnool, Kurnool District. .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.P.VEERA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 to 4: A.G.P. FOR ROADS & BUILDINGS CVNR,J W.P. NO.24772 OF 2002 The Court made the following Order: The writ petition is ﬁled for a Writ of Mandamus to declare the action of the respondents in deducting seigniorage charges on the gravel earth used by the petitioner for execution of the work of Heavy Periodic Maintenance and making up of deﬁciencies from K.M. 15/0 to K.M. 30/675 of Koilkuntla- Jammalamadugu road in Kurnool District, contrary to agreement dated 11.2.2000 entered between the petitioner and the respondents as illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Asst. Government Pleader for R&B and perused the record. The petitioner was entrusted with the above mentioned work under agreement dated 11.2.2000. The value of the work was Rs. 5,54,27,175/-. The petitioner averred that under the agreement, seigniorage charges are payable by the petitioner to the department in respect of road metal, bitumen, sand for ﬁlling and mortar. As evident from the lead statement to the agreement, the petitioner is liable to pay Rs.33/- for usage of one cubic metre of the above said minerals. The petitioner’s contention is that the agreement does not envisage recovery of seigniorage charges on gravel earth, that after completion of the work, in the intermittent bill dated 30.1.2002, the respondents have deducted a sum of Rs. 6.00 lakhs towards seigniorage charges on the gravel earth used on the work. Assailing the said action, the present writ petition is filed. In the counter aﬃdavit ﬁled by Respondent No.2, he denied the plea of the petitioner that the agreement did not contemplate collection of seigniorage charges on gravel earth. He relied on condition stipulated against Item No.43 of the agreement and averred that the said clause clearly enunciates that payment shall be adjusted for deductions, advance payments, retention and other recoveries in terms of the contract and taxes at source as applicable under law. Respondent No.2 pleaded that through G.O. Ms. No.331, Industries & Commerce (M-I) Department, dated 21.6.2000 and G.O. Ms. No.466, Industries and Commerce (MI) Department, dated 24.8.2000, the petitioner is bound to pay seigniorage charges on gravel and ordinary earth. The answering respondent also raised a plea that as the dispute arises under a contract, it provides for internal mechanism of settlement of disputes and that the writ petition ﬁled without exhausting the remedies provided under the agreement, is liable to be dismissed. I have carefully considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties. At the outset, it is required to be noted that the petitioner has not ﬁled a copy of the agreement. Though in the aﬃdavit it is stated that the copy of the lead statement shows the minerals on which seigniorage charge is payable, I do not ﬁnd any such lead statement in the ﬁle. The only document, which is ﬁled, namely, agreement bond along with forwarding slip, does not contain the details of the minerals on which seigniorage charges are liable to be paid. In the absence of ﬁling of any such agreement by the petitioner, it is not possible for this Court to resolve the dispute raised by the petitioner with regard to its liability to pay seigniorage charges on gravel earth. Therefore, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed on this ground. Another reason for my disinclination to dispose of the writ petition on merits is that the dispute arises under a commercial contract, pure and simple. As pointed out by Respondent No.2 in his counter aﬃdavit, it is the case of Respondent No.2 that the agreement provides for internal remedies for resolution of disputes. He relied on Clause 25 of the Agreement, which envisages the procedure for resolution of disputes through reference to technical expert and also for arbitration in the event either of the parties is aggrieved by the decision of the technical expert. Ordinarily, the public law remedy of ﬁling writ petition cannot be invoked by a party to a non-statutory contract, for settlement of disputes arising under such a contract as held by a catena of decisions of the Supreme Court. (See: Radha Krishna Agarwal v. State of Bihar[1], Kerala SEB v. Kurian E. Kalathil[2], State of WB v. Bridge & Roof Co. (India) Ltd.,[3] Bareilly Development Authority v. Ajaypal Singh[4], State of Gujarat v. Meghji Pethraj Shah Charitable Trust [5], Pimpri Chinchwad Municipal Corpn. v. Gayathri Construction Co.[6]). The petitioner has not made out any extraordinary reasons for this Court to deviate from this settled legal position to entertain this writ petition to resolve the dispute arising under a commercial contract. In view of the same, the writ petition is dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to seek reference of the dispute to the technical expert under Clause 25.1 of the agreement. If such a request is made within a period of six weeks from today, the same shall be entertained and decided by the technical expert on merits. If the petitioner is aggrieved by the decision of the technical expert, it is entitled to avail the remedy of reference to arbitration as provided under Clause 25.2 of the agreement. Subject to the above observations, the writ petition is dismissed. As a sequel to dismissal of the writ petition, W.P.M.P. No.31210 of 2002 ﬁled by the petitioner for interim relief is dismissed as infructuous. ___________________________ C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY,J DATE: 20th October, 2008 pnb [1]AIR 1977 Sc 1496 [2] (2000) 6 SCC 293 [3] (1996) 6 SCC 22 [4] (1989) 2 SCC 116 [5] (1994) 3 SCC 552 [6] (2008) 8 SCC 172