IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) PRESENT: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY FRIDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF OCTOBER, TWO THOUSAND EIGHT ONLY WRIT PETITION No.21684 of 2003 Between: M/s.Venkat Sai Constructions, Plot No.128, S.P. Colony, Trimalgherry, Secunderabad, reptd., by its Managing Partner-Sri B.Ravinder Rao. … Petitioner And Chief Engineer (R & B), Roads, Erramanzil, Hyderabad and two others. … Respondents Counsel for the petitioners: Smt. H. Seetha Devi for Sri A.Ramalingeswara Rao Counsel for the respondents: AGP for Roads and Buildings. This Court made the following: ORDER:- This Writ Petition is ﬁled for a Writ of Mandamus to declare the action of the respondents in recovering the seigniorage charges on ordinary earth from the work bills of the petitioner in respect of Agreement No.78/2001-02, dated 9-10-2001 entered by the respondents with the petitioner, as illegal and void. Heard Smt.H.Seetha Devi, counsel representing Sri A.Ramalingeswara Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner; learned Assistant Government Pleader for Roads and Buildings for the respondents; and perused the record. The petitioner entered into an agreement with the respondents for execution of work of “Improvements to the Carriageway of Hyderabad-Medak-Bodhan road from KM 78/6 to 83/0 (Medak Town limits) in Medak District”. He entered into agreement dated 9-10-2001 with the respondents for execution of the said work for an approximate value of Rs.3,74,93,357/-. According to the petitioner, Schedule-D of the agreement contains the provision for payment of seigniorage charges on sand, metal, R.R.stone for masonry, Revetment Stone, C.R.S.Stone and Gravel; and there is no provision for payment of seigniorage charges on “ordinary earth”. The petitioner, however, admits that the A.P. Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1966 was amended with eﬀect from 24-8-2000, wherein the words “Morrum/Gravel and Ordinary Earth” were substituted in the place of “Morrum/Gravel” at Serial No.8 under Column (2) of Schedule-I. The plea of the petitioner is that as the agreement did not incorporate the amended rule, it is not liable to pay the seigniorage charges on “ordinary earth”. In the counter-aﬃdavit ﬁled by respondent No.3 it is, inter alia, averred that, in the instant case, tenders were called for and agreement was concluded after the rule was amended; and that the petitioner is liable to pay the seigniorage charges in accordance with the statutory rules. In my considered view the dispute arises under a commercial contract pure and simple. The Writ jurisdiction, which is a public law remedy, is not ordinarily exercised to decide the dispute arising under non-statutory contracts. Whether the petitioner is liable to pay the seigniorage on “ordinary earth”, in the absence of a clause in the agreement to that eﬀect, or not is required to be decided by the competent Court of civil jurisdiction. In this view of the matter, the Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to approach a competent Civil Court or an Arbitrator, if the agreement between the parties provides for such a remedy. The Writ Petition is, therefore, dismissed, without going into the merits of the case, with liberty to the petitioner to pursue either of the remedies indicated hereinabove. ------------------------- -------------- C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY,J Date:24-10-2008 MNR