THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY W.P.No.11043 of 2009 ORDER: The 1st respondent-Municipality issued notification, dated 26.02.2009, inviting tenders for assignment of contracts to collect market fee, at different places in the town. The areas were divided into three parts and the rates to collect the market fee on various materials, were published in schedules A, B and C. The petitioner emerged as highest bidder for schedules A and C, whereas the 2nd respondent was the highest bidder for schedule B. Disputes arose as to the right to collect the market fee on the vehicles that enter the municipality. While the petitioner insisted that specific reference to such a collection is made in schedules A and C and no such mention exists in schedule B, the 2nd respondent contended otherwise. The latter approached the 1st respondent seeking clarification. The 1st respondent, in turn, issued proceedings, dated 04.04.2009, stating that the 2nd respondent is entitled to collect market fee on the vehicles that enter the town, except in the areas, which are notified under schedules A and C. The petitioner feels aggrieved by the same. Heard Sri M.V.Durga Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri S.I.Newton, learned counsel for the 1st respondent and Sri B.Vijaya Bhaskar, learned counsel for the 2nd respondent. It is clear that the 1st respondent divided the area into three parts, in the context of collection of market fee, only in the year 2009. Earlier it used to be a single unit. In the course of description of the relevant schedules, there appears to be some uncertainty. Naturally, that gave rise to disputes between the petitioner and the 2nd respondent. The manner, in which, the parties understood the scope of the respective contracts in their favour, needs to be established only by adducing evidence, oral as well as documentary. The interpretation of the notification as well as the consequential agreements, need to be examined. It is only a civil Court, or a forum of Arbitration that would be better suited to resolve the matters of this nature. This Court cannot express opinion, either way, on such disputed questions of fact in the proceedings instituted under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In case the petitioner, or the 2nd respondent, approaches a civil Court, or initiates arbitration proceedings, the opinion expressed by the 1st respondent can be treated as not binding. Hence, the Writ Petition is disposed of, leaving it open to the petitioner to work out her remedies by approaching appropriate forum. In case any proceedings are instituted, before a civil Court, or before an Arbitrator, the impugned proceedings shall not be treated as the basis, or final opinion. In view of the fact that the contract itself is for a limited period, the forum, in which the proceedings may be instituted, shall endeavour to dispose of the same as early as possible. There shall be no order as to costs. ______________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY, J Dated:27.10.2009 GJ