THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.20505 of 2002 Date: 30.01.2008 Between: M/s.Sujana Constructions … Petitioner AND The Govt. of A.P., Rep by Prl.Secretary, R&B Department, Hyderabad. & others. … Respondents Counsel for the petitioner: Sri M.Srikanth for Sri M.Panduranga Rao. Counsel for respondents : A.G.P. for R & B. HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.20505 of 2002 ORDER:- This writ petition is filed for a writ of mandamus to set aside letter No.SE/NL.II/2002-2003/515 dt.1.7.2002, whereby a sum of Rs.4,55,424/- was sought to be recovered, as illegal and arbitrary. Heard Sri M.Srikanth, counsel representing Sri M.Panduranga Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Roads and Buildings. The petitioner is entrusted with execution of road-work of Hyderabad-Vijayawada section of NH-9 from Km.75/0 to 83/0 at an estimated cost of Rs.1,62,61,818. After the completion of the work initially a sum of Rs.36,000/- was recovered towards deficiencies. Subsequently, the Executive Engineer (R&B), National Highways Division No.II addressed letter dated 10.7.2002 to the petitioner wherein it was stated that as per Engineer-in-Chief’s (R&B), Administration, Hyderabad memo and the consequential memo of the Superintending Engineer, R&B, NH-Circle instructions have been issued to effect recovery of Rs.4,55,424/- towards deficiencies in SDBC thickness and BM thickness and that the said amount will be recovered. By letter dated 14.8.2002 the petitioner disputed the existence of any such deficiencies in the execution of work. As the respondents sought to go ahead with the proposed recovery, the present writ petition is filed. Sri M.Subba Rao, Executive Engineer (R&B), National Highways Division-II - Respondent No.6 filed a counter affidavit in which it is inter alia mentioned that the Executive Engineer, Quality Control Division, Warangal inspected the work on 21.7.2001 and found deficiencies in SDBC work and accordingly he proposed recovery of Rs.36,000/- which was recovered by respondent No.6. He however, averred that Superintending Engineer (Quality Control) also inspected the work on 28.3.2002 and on the basis of deficiencies between BM and SDBC, he recommended for a further recovery of Rs.4,55,424/-. He also stated that these recoveries are proposed in accordance with the agreement conditions and within the defect liability period of two years which ended on 14.3.2003. From the averments contained in the respective pleadings of the parties, it is clear that the dispute raised by the petitioner in this writ petition arises out of a concluded commercial agreement. Ordinarily this Court exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India does not entertain and adjudicate such disputes as they arise under common law for which remedies before the common law courts are available for the parties. As held in M/s.Radhakrishna Agarwal & Others Vs. State of Bihar and Others[1] and a plethora of subsequent judgments, merely because the State is a party to a commercial contract, the writ petition is ordinarily not entertained for adjudication of disputes arising there under. My disinclination to interfere with the dispute raised by the petitioner is rested on the further fact that the issue raised by the petitioner falls under the realm of disputed facts, namely whether there were deficiencies in the thickness of the works executed by the petitioner or not and these disputes can be conveniently adjudicated only by the Civil Court on the basis of the evidence adduced by the parties. For the aforementioned reasons, the writ petition is liable and is accordingly dismissed. ___________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY,J Date:30.01.2008 mdaa [1] AIR 1977 SC 1496