THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION Nos.15662, 17228, 19004 of 2006 and 6498 of 2007 Dated 21st June, 2010 Between: S. Kantha Reddy and others. …Petitioner And The Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by Secretary, and others. …Respondents Counsel for the petitioners: Sri Raj Kumar Rudra Counsel for respondent No.1: Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies Counsel for respondent Nos.2 and 3: Sri T.S. Praveen Kumar learned standing counsel for A.P.S.C.S.C. The Court made the following: COMMON ORDER: W.P.Nos.15662, 17228 and 19004 of 2006 have been filed assailing the proceedings dated 14.07.2006 issued by respondent No.2. A perusal of the said proceedings shows that in exercise of the contractual powers vested in him, the Vice Chairman and Managing Director of respondent No.2 extended the existing contracts for a period of three months with effect from 01.08.2006. When these writ petitions came up for hearing at the interlocutory stage, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that one more writ petition, namely, W.P.No.6498 of 2007, which is connected with these cases, has not been posted. In view of the said submission, the said case is called for from the Registry and I have heard all these writ petitions. The petitioner in W.P.No.15662 of 2006 has filed W.P.No.6498 of 2007 questioning the purported ‘no due’ certificate dated 10.01.2007, wherein it is stated that the petitioner owes a sum of Rs.23,37,537/- as dues recoverable from him towards additional transport charges for undertaking departmental movements from August, 2006 to October, 2006. As far as W.P.Nos.15662, 17228 and 19004 of 2006 are concerned, the extension of contract questioned in these writ petitions was for a period of three months from 01.08.2006. This Court, by separate interim orders, suspended the said proceedings. In my opinion, as the period of three months for which extension was granted has expired, no cause of action in these writ petition survives for adjudication. With regard to W.P.No.6498 of 2007, in view of the failure of the petitioner therein to undertake transport in pursuance of the extension order, the respondents have issued the ‘no due’ certificate to the effect that the he is due to pay Rs.23,37,537/- towards extra expenditure incurred by the department for transporting the food grains departmentally. In the counter-affidavit, the respondents, apart from defending the said decision on merits, raised an objection regarding maintainability of the writ petition by stating that under clause 23 of the contract, the petitioner has a remedy of referring the dispute for arbitration. The learned counsel for the petitioners has not disputed existence of arbitration clause. Ordinarily, this Court does not entertain disputes arising out of non-statutory contracts even though the State or its instrumentalities are parties to such contracts (State of U.P. vs. Bridge & Roof Co. (India) Ltd.[1] and National Highways Authority of India vs. Ganga Enterprises[2]). In National Highways (2nd supra), the Supreme Court held as under: "6. The respondent then filed a writ petition in the High Court for refund of the amount. On the pleadings before it, the High Court raised two questions viz.: (a) whether the forfeiture of security deposit is without authority of law and without any binding contract between the parties and also contrary to Section 5 of the Contract Act; and (b) whether the writ petition is maintainable in a claim arising out of a breach of contract. Question (b) should have been first answered as it would go to the root of the matter. The High Court instead considered Question (a) and then chose not to answer Question (b). In our view, the answer to Question (b) is clear. It is settled law that disputes relating to contracts cannot be agitated under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It has been so held in the cases of Kerala SEB v. Kurien E. Kalathil (2000 (6) SCC 293), State of U.P. v. Bridge & Roof Co. (India) Ltd. (1996 (6) SCC 22) and Bareilly Development Authority v. Ajai Pal Singh 1989 (2) SCC 116. This is settled law. The dispute in this case was regarding the terms of offer. They were thus contractual disputes in respect of which a writ court was not the proper forum. Mr Dave, however, relied upon the cases of Verigamto Naveen v. Govt. of A.P. (2001 (8 SCC 344)) and Harminder Singh Arora v. Union of India (1986 (3) SCC 247). These, however, are cases where the writ court was enforcing a statutory right or duty. These cases do not lay down that a writ court can interfere in a matter of contract only. Thus on the ground of maintainability the petition should have been dismissed." The said judgment was followed in Pimpri Chinchwad Municipal Corpn. vs. Gayatri Construction Co.[3]. In view of this settled legal position, I am of the view that this writ petition raising a dispute under concluded contract is not maintainable in the face of availability of alternative remedy for arbitration. For the abovementioned reasons, while dismissing W.P.Nos.15662, 17228 and 19004 of 2006 as infructuous, W.P.No.6498 of 2007 is dismissed with liberty to the petitioners to avail the remedy of arbitration. As a sequel to dismissal of these writ petitions, interim orders dated 28.07.2006 passed in W.P.M.P.No.19495 of 2006 in W.P.No.15662 of 2006, dated 18.08.2006 passed in W.P.M.P.No.21583 of 2006 in W.P.No.17228 of 2006, dated 13.09.2006 passed in W.P.M.P.No.23908 of 2006 in W.P.No.19004 of 2006 are vacated, W.P.M.P.No.19495 of 2006 filed by the petitioner in W.P.No.15662 of 2006 for interim relief, W.V.M.P.No.1615 of 2006 filed by respondent No.2 in W.P.No.15662 of 2006, W.P.M.P.No.21583 of 2006 filed by the petitioner in W.P.No.17228 of 2006 for interim relief, W.V.M.P.No.1644 of 2006 filed by respondent No.2 and 3 in W.P.No.17228 of 2006, W.P.M.P.No.23908 of 2006 filed by the petitioner in W.P.No.19004 of 2006 for interim relief, W.V.M.P.No.370 of 2007 filed by the respondents in W.P.No.19004 of 2006, W.P.M.P.No.8289 of 2007 filed by the petitioner in W.P.No.6498 of 2007 for interim relief, are also dismissed as infructuous. ________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 21st June, 2010 GHN [1] (1996) 6 SCC 22 [2] (2003) 7 SCC 410 [3] (2008) 8 SCC 172