IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE EIGHTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 4793 of 2007 Between: Mr.T.Narayan Reddy, s/o late Ram Reddy, r/o Jhally Village, Chenna Rao Pet Mandal, Warangal District, Warangal. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport corporation, represented by its Executive Engineer (S.C.D.,) Warangal. 2 Managing Director, Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, Musheerabad, Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.P.KESAVA RAO Counsel for the Respondents: SMT.P.RAJANI REDDY The Court made the following: ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed for a writ of Mandamus to declare the inaction of the respondents, in considering the petitioner’s representation/notice dated 08-01-2007 for payment of Rs.22,000/- with interest, as illegal and arbitrary. The petitioner executed certain works of the respondents under an agreement dated 17-01-1989. As disputes arose in connection with the said execution, he invoked the remedy of arbitration and obtained award dated 15-02-1993 for a sum of Rs.22,000/-. While failing to file an application for making the said authority Rule of Court, as required under the provisions of the Arbitration Act, 1940 (for short ‘the Act’), under which the said award was passed, the petitioner filed O.P.No.139 of 1993 under the said Act to set aside the said award. The I Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, dismissed the said OP. But, the fact remains that the petitioner has not got award dated 15-02-1993 made Rule of Court. However, the petitioner gave representation to the respondents for payment of the awarded amount. His grievance in this Writ Petition is that the respondents have not been disposing of the said representation. In the light of the facts referred to above, the legal position is well settled that the award, passed under the provisions of the Act, is not enforceable unless it is made Rule of Court. As, admittedly, award dated 15-02-1993 was not made Rule of Court, the respondents have no obligation to pay the awarded amount. Therefore, their failure to respond to the representation given by the petitioner for payment of the awarded amount does not create any enforceable right in the petitioner to approach this Court for giving appropriate directions to the respondents to dispose of his representation. In this view of the matter, the petitioner is not entitled to the grant of any relief in this Writ Petition The Writ Petition is, therefore, dismissed. As a sequel to dismissal of the Writ Petition, WPMP.No.6116 of 2007 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. ______________________ (C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy, J) 8th June, 2009 lur