IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 10084 of 2005 Between: D. Subba Rao, S/o D. Ramakrishna Sastry, R/o MIG Quarter No. 526, Pedagantyada, Visakhapatnam. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Vice Chairman & Commissioner, AP Housing Board, Gruhakalpa, Nampally, Hyderabad. 2 The Executive Engineer (Hg), AP Housing Board, Visakhapatnam. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Aﬃdavit ﬁled herein the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 2nd respondent in issuing demand Notice No. E3/MIG/526/PGD/2004/1101, dt. 20-9-2004 is being illegal, arbitrary, and contrary to the Housing Board Rules and Regulations and set aside the same and consequently to direct the respondents not to collect the higher purchase instalments in MIG Flat No. 526 of Pedhagantyada Housing Colony, Visakhapatnam District and to pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem ﬁt and proper in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.C.H.SATISH KUMAR Counsel for the Respondents: MR.D.RANGANATHA KUMAR The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.10084 of 2005 ORDER: This writ petition is ﬁled for a Writ of Mandamus to declare the demand notice, dated 20.09.2004, issued by respondent No.2, as illegal and unenforceable. 2. By the impugned notice, the petitioner is called upon to pay a sum of Rs.27,823/-, out of which a sum of Rs.23,516/- is shown to be payable towards penal interest for the belated payments as per clause 18 of the agreement. 3. Admittedly, the house property in respect of which the impugned notice was issued was allotted to the petitioner under a Hire Purchase Agreement by the Andhra Pradesh Housing Board. Ordinarily, a writ petition ﬁled in connection with a dispute arising out of a contract cannot be maintained. Moreover, whether the amount demanded by the respondents is payable by the petitioner or not is required to be adjudicated with reference to the evidence to be adduced by both the parties. Therefore, the common law remedy of a civil suit is the appropriate remedy for the petitioner to question the demand made by the respondents. 4. In this view of the matter, without going into the merits of the case, the writ petition is dismissed, with liberty to the petitioner to avail the remedy of civil suit. No costs. _______________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY,J 27.08.2008 v v