THE HON'BLE Dr. JUSTICE G. YETHIRAJULU WRIT PETITION No.884 of 2004 Dated: 31.01.2008 Between M/s.Sri Radhakrishna Transport …Petitioner And Surface Manager, O/o.Surface Manager, Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Limited, Rajahmundry Asset, Godavari Bhavan, Rajahmundry 533106 A.P. and another. …Respondents THE HON'BLE Dr. JUSTICE G. YETHIRAJULU WRIT PETITION No.884 of 2004 ORDER: This is a writ petition filed by the petitioner seeking to declare the action of the respondents in wrongly affecting recovery of the alleged overpayment in the past contracts from 01.08.2001 to 03.07.2003, as illegal and arbitrary, and consequently to direct the respondents to release the amount of Rs.29,15,422.70 ps. with interest. The petitioner is a contractor under the respondent Corporation for transport of oil. The petitioner entered into a contract with the respondent Corporation for various periods and transported the oil. The allegation is that the petitioner took its vehicles through a shortcut route, which is not officially available for transport, but claimed transport charges for the official route. The bills were originally accepted and payments were made for various periods. But, subsequently, an investigation was done, which disclosed that the petitioner used the shortest route that was closed for the purpose of repairs and claimed the transport charges for the longest official route, therefore, the respondents withheld the payments to the petitioner from the bills of the subsequent period. Hence, the petitioner approached this Court seeking the above relief. The petitioner is contending that it took its vehicles through the official route, and therefore, the question of adjustment of any excess payment does not arise. Whereas, the respondents are contending that though the petitioner used shortcut route, which was officially prohibited for transport of vehicles on account of repairs, it claimed transport charges for the route through which it was officially permitted to take the vehicles. In the light of the contentions of both the parties there is a disputed question of fact, which has to be decided either before an Arbitrator or before the Civil Court. Unless the said dispute is resolved, it is not possible to this Court to give any direction to the respondents to adjust the extra payment in the bills for subsequent period. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. However, the petitioner is at liberty to make an application to the respondent Corporation requesting to appoint an Arbitrator for the said purpose or to resort to any other relief that is available under law. There shall be no order as to costs. ___________________ Dr. G. Yethirajulu, J Date: 31.01.2008 va