THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION Nos.12983 and 13020 of 2010 June 10, 2010 Between: Ms.K.Tirumaleswari, D/o.Subba Reddy … Petitioner And The Collector (Civil Supplies)/Joint Collector, Adilabad And others ... Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION Nos.12983 and 13020 of 2010 COMMON ORDER: These two writ petitions can be disposed of by common order as they are filed by one Ms.K.Tirumaleswari, Proprietrix of M/s.Sri Sai Tirumala Services. In both the writ petitions, she seeks a direction to respondents to forthwith release certain amounts in discharge of contractual obligations by respondents. Petitioner statedly provides computer software services. Respondents entered into contract with petitioner for preparation and supply of IRIS based House Hold Cards (HHCs) for Department of Civil Supplies. Petitioner was entrusted with the work of preparation of HHCs in rural areas as well as urban areas of Adilabad District. Insofar as preparation of IRIS based HHCs in rural areas are concerned, petitioner’s bills were not paid fully. An amount of Rs.4,83,295/- was due to petitioner. Similarly in respect of other item of work, namely, preparation of IRIS based ration cards to left over families in urban and rural areas, an amount of Rs.8,91,229/- was not paid. Petitioner made representations, in vain. Considering representations, Collector (Civil Supplies)/Joint Collector issued a communication according sanction for payment of Rs.2,60,981/- in one item of the work, which is subject matter of first writ petition, and also similar proceedings on 15.3.2010 according sanction for payment of Rs.8,91,229/- in respect of other item of work, which is subject matter of second writ petition. As amounts were not paid, present writ petitions are filed. This Court heard the counsel for petitioner and the Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies. It is well settled that ordinarily a writ petition would not lie for recovery of amount payable under a contract from the Government or public sector undertaking or private party. I n Suganmal v State of Madhya Pradesh[1], the Supreme Court held that, “normally, petitions solely praying for refund of money against State are not maintainable and that the aggrieved party has right to raise all the defences which cannot be raised in writ petition.” To the same effect 0069s the decision in U.P.Pollution Control Board v Kanoria Industrial Ltd.[2] and the decision of this Court in Dr.J.Ramachandra Rao v Andhra Pradesh State Civil Supplies Corporation[3]. This Court is convinced that both the writ petitions virtually seek a decree to the Collector (Civil Supplies) directing payment of balance of bills/amount sanctioned. Such writ petitions are not maintainable. As there appears not much dispute with regard to part of the amount payable to the petitioner, these writ petitions are disposed of directing the Collector (Civil Supplies)/Joint Collector to consider the representations of the petitioner and take necessary action for payment of the amounts. This exercise may be completed within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The writ petitions are accordingly disposed of. ______________ (V.V.S. RAO, J) June 10, 2010 NOTE: Dispatch order copy in ten days. (By order) YS [1] AIR 1965 SC 1740 [2] (2001) 2 SCC 549 [3] 2004 (6) ALD 682 : 2005(1) ALT 112