THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION No.19845 OF 2001 DATE: 11-2-2010 Between: M/s KMC Constructions Engineers and Contractors, Hyderabad ….. Petitioner And 1. Engineer in Chief ( R&B), APHM & ECRP Hyderabad and 4 others … Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION No.19845 OF 2001 ORDER: The relief sought for in this writ petition is to declare the proceedings of the Executive Engineer (R &B), A.P.H.M. & E.C.R.P. Division, Nellore, dated 01.08.2001 as arbitrary and illegal. The petitioner herein has been executing road works for the Government of Andhra Pradesh. They were the successful tenderers in respect of the work of widening and strengthening of Ongole – Nandyal Road (upto Podili) from Km. 28/0 to 51/0 in Prakasam District. The value of the work was Rs.5,14,16,671-10 ps. The work was required to be completed within fifteen months from the date the site was handed over. Accordingly an agreement was entered into on 11.2.1999. The petitioner did not complete the work within the agreed period i.e., before 10.5.2000 which they claim is because of several obstructions and hindrances some of which are detailed in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition. Their request for extension of time was acceded to, and the period for completion of the work was extended upto 31.3.2001. They again sought extension of time which was granted by the 2nd respondent, vide letter dated 15.7.2001, without allowing for price escalation beyond 10.5.2000. The 3rd respondent, vide proceedings dated 1.8.2001, informed the petitioner that a sum of Rs.51.42 lakhs was being recovered, as liquidated damages, from their bills for the said work. The petitioner would contend that the impugned order was passed at the dictates of the 5th respondent and, instead of complying with the disputes resolution clause in the agreement, the 3rd respondent had unilaterally taken a decision to impose liquidated damages. The dispute raised in this writ petition is in the realm of contract. I see no reason to exercise discretion under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to entertain a writ petition involving contractual disputes since the petitioner has an effective remedy of invoking the jurisdiction of the competent civil court or the arbitration clause in the agreement. Leaving it open to the petitioner to avail such remedies as are available to them in law, the writ petition fails and is, accordingly, dismissed. However, in the circumstances, without costs. ___________ 11-2-2010 asp