IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 16652 of 2005 Between: Nimmagadda Narasimha Rao S/o Suryanarayana Dharmajigudem, Lingapalem Mandal, West Godavari District ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Government of Andhra PRadesh rep by Principal Secretary Panchayath Raj Department, Secratariat, Hyderabad A.P., 2 The District Collector (PR) West Godavari District Eluru West Godavari District 3 Superintending Engineer Panchayath Raj Departmetn, Eluru, West Godavari District 4 Superintending Engineer Rural Water Scheme (RWS) Collectorate Complex Eluru, West Godavari District 5 Executive Engineer Panchayath Raj Department Jangareddygudem West Godavari District ....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.RAVI KUMAR TOLETY Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ & RURAL DEV. The Court made the following : O R D E R: This writ petition is filed for a writ of Mandamus to declare the inaction of the respondents in making payment of admitted amounts of the 33 works, which include work done, but not paid, refund of deposit amount and refund of security deposit and also issue of TDS certificate in spite of petitioner’s repeated representations as arbitrary and illegal. The petitioner, who is a registered Class-II Contractor, claims to have executed 33 works from the years 1985-86 to 1996 of the values ranging from Rs.50,000/- to Rs.15,00,000/-. His grievance is that the respondents did not finalize the final bills in some cases and did not release the security deposits in other cases. In the counter-affidavit filed by respondent No.5, it is, inter alia, stated that the petitioner executed certain works during 1985-86 to 1998-99 and after a lapse of about 10 to 20 years, he filed a representation in help-line on 08-06-2004 for refund of deposits and payment of final bills in respect of certain works. It is further stated that the Executive Engineer in References dated 15-06-2004, 28-06- 2004, 12-07-2004 submitted a detailed report to the District Collector, West Godavari District, Eluru, along with stamped receipts taken from the petitioner, in respect of 9 works, which were sent to the Pay and Accounts Officer, Eluru for payment of deposits. It is further stated that out of the 9 works, deposits in respect of 7 works were refunded to the petitioner in the year 2004-2005 and the same was accepted by him. As regards the claim of the petitioner for payment of bills in 33 works, it is stated that 20 out of the said 33 works were executed before reorganization of the Eluru Division, and three works were executed in Panchayat Raj Division, Jangareddigudem and remaining 10 works did not relate to the petitioner and that the amount which was deposited by the petitioner for the 20 works was adjusted to the Executive Engineer, Panchayat Raj, Eluru deposits Head of Accounts. It is also stated that deposits for 2 works were not refunded to the petitioner, as the bills are not finalized since the works were not executed as per the terms of the agreement. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record, I am of the view that the disputes pertaining to payment of bills cannot be resolved by this Court in the face of the denial made by the respondents of the petitioner’s entitlement to receive payments. This Court’s jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot be availed by the petitioner to resolve the disputed claims for payment of money due under different contracts. Admittedly, the disputes arise under commercial contracts pure and simple. Therefore, ordinarily the public law remedy of a writ petition cannot be invoked by a party to the disputes under such commercial contracts. Since the respondents have not admitted their liability, it is not possible for this Court to direct them to make payments. Hence, the writ petition is dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to avail appropriate remedy before a forum of competent jurisdiction. As a sequel to dismissal of main petition, WPMP No.21175 of 2005 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is dismissed as infructuous. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Dated 11th July, 2008 vrn