IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO:24287 of 2001 Between: S.Satyanarayana Reddy S/o Janardhan Reddy Malapalli Village, Mantralayam Mandal, Kurnool Dsitrict. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Government of Andhra Pradesh Rep by its Secretary, Panchyat Raj & Ruarl Development, SEcretariat Buildings, Hyderabad. 2 The Chief Engineer (PR) NABARD, Hyderabad. 3 The Superintending Engineer, Panchayat Raj, Anathapur, Camp Office, Kurnool. 4 The Executive Engineer Panchayat Raj Division, Adoni, Kurnool District. 5 The Deputy Executive Engineer (Quality Controoll),Panchayat Raj, Kurnool. .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.P.SRINIVASULU Counsel for the Respondents:AGP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ The Court made the following : ORDER: This writ petition is ﬁled for a writ of mandamus to set aside order, dated 19.02.2001 passed by respondent No.4 and to declare that the petitioner has no authority to decide the dispute unilaterally. The petitioner also sought for a direction to release the bill to the petitioner in full settlement towards his claim. The petitioner executed the work relating to providing BT Surface to the Road from Yemmiganur to Soganur costing Rs.28.4 lakhs under agreement, dated 06.08.1997. He was paid the sums of Rs.9,36,275/- and Rs.8,25,402/- under two instalments. As the balance amount including a sum of Rs.55,000/- towards Earnest Money Deposit, which according to the petitioner, is payable to him, was not paid, he ﬁled Writ Petition No.12033 of 2000, which was disposed of by this Court with the direction to the respondents to consider his representation, dated 13.03.2000 for payment of ﬁnal bill. The said order was reviewed in WPMP.No.26235 of 2000 by modifying the earlier order to the eﬀect that without expressing any opinion on merits, the respondents shall dispose of the representation of the petitioner within four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of the said order, after aﬀording an opportunity of being heard. Purporting to comply with the said order, respondent No.4 disposed of the said representation by his order, dated 19.02.2001 and enclosed a cheque for Rs.14,938/- towards the balance amount payable to the petitioner. Not being satisﬁed with the said order, the petitioner filed the present writ petition. In the counter-aﬃdavit ﬁled by respondent No.4, it is stated that in compliance with the order of this Court in previous writ petition, the impugned order was passed after giving him reasonable opportunity of hearing. It is further stated that inspection of the work by the Technical Advisor to the Hon’ble Chief Minister on 05.01.1999 revealed that there were deﬁciencies in execution of work to the extent of Rs.2,56,904/-. The dispute raised by the petitioner arises under a commercial contract. The question whether the petitioner is entitled to receive all the amounts claimed by him or not is required to be adjudicated either in a civil suit or in an arbitration proceeding, where the agreement between the parties provides for resolution of disputes through arbitration. Exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, this Court does not ordinarily entertain the disputes arising under non-statutory commercial contracts and the petitioner failed to show any extraordinary reason for this Court to entertain this writ petition and adjudicate the same on merits. The writ petition is, therefore, dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to approach the appropriate forum for redressal of his grievance. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 7th NOVEMBER, 2008. kvni