IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION NO : 9466 of 2008 Between: D.Madhusudhna Rao, Proprietor of M/s S.V.R.Agencies,S/o. Masthanaiah, R/o. Srinivasa Apartments, James Garden, Nellore, Nellore District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1.The Nellore District Milk Producers, Mutually Aided Co-operative Union Ltd., Nellore, rep by its Managing Director, Nellore Dairy Premises, Venkateswara Puram, Nellore, Nellore District. 2.Manager,The Nellore District Milk Producers, Mutually Aided Co- operative Union Ltd., Nellore, rep by its Managing Director, Nellore Dairy Premises, Venkateswara Puram, Nellore, Nellore District. 3.The Asst. Accounts Office,The Nellore Dist., Milk Producers, Mutually Aided Co-operative Union Ltd., Nellore, rep by its Managing Director, Nellore Dairy Premises, Venkateswara Puram, Nellore, Nellore District. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue an appropriate Writ, Order or Direction , particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the respondents in enhancing the Sale rate of Cream with 50% Fat from Rs.61-05/-to 66-05/- and again enhancing from Rs.66-05/- to Rs.67- 40/- is arbitrary, unreasonable and contrary to the condition No.7 of the Agreement and accordingly set aside the impugned proceedings of the 1st respondent vide Proc.No.2179/E2/07, dated 2-4-2008 as well as U.O.No.Te.No.2179/E2/2007, dated 16-4-2008. Counsel for the Petitioner: BOYARAVINDER REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.: .. The Court made the following ORDER: THE HON’BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI Writ Petition No.9466 of 2008 ORDER: The challenge in this writ petition is with regard to enhancement of sale rate of cream by the first respondent which according to the petitioner is contrary to the conditions of agreement, dated 09.04.2008. On the fact of it, the dispute arises out of non-statutory contract entered into between the petitioner and the first respondent. Hence, it is not open to the petitioner to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for enforcement of the rights, if any, obtained under the non-statutory contract. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. However, this shall not preclude the petitioner from working out the appropriate common law remedy as available under law. No costs. _______________ 13.06.2008 VGB