IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD TUESDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT APPEAL NO : 1867 of 2001 (Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Order dated 12/11/2001 in WP NO : 23205 OF 2001 on the file of the High Court.) Between: Settipalli Ravi Kumar S/o. S.Sanjeeva Reddy Special Class Contractor r/o H.No.1/493, Smith Road, Nagarjupet, Cuddapah. ..... APPELLANT AND 1 The Engineer-In-Chief (R&B) A&EAP The Engineer-In-Chief(R&B) A&EAP Erram Manzil, Hyderabad. 2 The Superintending Engineer The Superintending Engineer R & B, Cuddapah Circle, Cuddpah 3 The Executive Engineer The Executive Engineer R&B Division Proddatur Cuddapah District. 4 The Pay & Accounts Officer The Pay & Accounts Officer R & B Circle Office Cuddapah. .....RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Appellant: MR.K.RATHANGA PANI REDDY Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR ROADS & BUILDINGS The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE T. MEENA KUMARI AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN W.A.NO. 1867 OF 2001 JUDGMENT: (Per Smt. T. Meena Kumari, J) The present writ appeal is ﬁled against the order dated 12.11.2001 passed by a learned single Judge of this Court in WP No. 23205 of 2001. Heard learned counsel for the parties. The main grievance of the appellant is that the respondents are trying to recover Rs.4,10,180/- under the APERP work vide Memo dated 28.4.2001 and it was sought to be recovered from the ongoing work bills and a notice for such recovery was issued on 26.6.2001. The learned single Judge having gone into the merits of the case held that the any dispute relating to the terms and conditions of the contract cannot be gone into in writ proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and the petitioner could work out his remedies as per the terms and conditions of the contract. The learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that no prior notice was issued before demanding the recovery which violated the principles of natural justice and the observation of the learned single Judge that the contract is not a statutory contract would affect the rights of the appellant. We are of the opinion that the learned single Judge should not have gone into the merits of the case and observed that the contract is not a statutory contract, because that would cause prejudice to him in the alternative proceedings that may be taken as per the terms and conditions of the contract. Therefore, the said observation of the learned single Judge that the contract is not a statutory contract would not bind the parties. The appellant is entitled to avail the remedies open to him under law and we make it clear that we have not gone into the merits of the case and also not gone into the question whether the contract was a statutory contract or non-statutory contract. The learned counsel for the appellant seeks liberty for the appellant to make an appropriate representation to the respondents in pursuance of the impugned notice for recovery of the amount. Liberty is granted accordingly. With these modiﬁcations, the writ appeal is disposed of. No order as to costs. ___________________ T. MEENA KUMARI, J _________________________ RAMESH RANGANATHAN, J Dt.22.7.2008 KR ........REGISTRAR To 1. 2.2 CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WA { }