*THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY + WRIT PETITION No.8774 of 2009 % Dated: 04-03-2011 # Rasani Sambaiah … Petitioner VERSUS $ The State of A.P., rep., by its Principal Secretary, Forest Department, Hyderabad & others. … Respondents ! Counsel for the petitioner : Sri Hari Prasad Podila ^ Counsel for the respondents: GP for Forests <GIST: > HEAD NOTE: ? Cases referred 1. AIR 1962 SC 1320 2. AIR 1965 SC 1740 3. (2011) 2 SCC 439 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.8774 of 2009 Between: Rasani Sambaiah ..... Petitioner AND The State of A.P., rep., by its Principal Secretary, Forest Department, Hyderabad & others. .....Respondents Counsel for the petitioner: Sri Hari Prasad Podila Counsel for the respondents: GP for Forests The Court made the following: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.8774 of 2009 ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed for a Certiorari to quash proceedings dated 20.03.2009 of respondent No.4. After elaborately hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Forests, I am of the opinion that this Writ Petition in effect raises a money claim by the petitioner. According to the petitioner, under the agreement between him and respondent No.4, he is entitled to transport charges in respect of 1097.47 cubic meters as against which charges in respect of 900 cubic meters alone were paid leaving balance transport charges in respect of 197.47 cubic meters. It is the further case of the petitioner that the rates were misquoted by relying on an incorrect FSR code and subsequently the same was rectified. A detailed counter affidavit is filed by respondent No.4 denying the claims of the petitioner on both the counts. Indeed, at the hearing, the learned Government Pleader for Forests placed reliance on proceedings in Rc.No.7370/2002/A2, dated 27.02.2007, wherein respondent No.4 has informed the petitioner that if he has any claims to be made, he has to approach the civil Court of competent jurisdiction as per Sl.No.24 (Annexure-VII-C (Para 2.6.2.4)) of Manual of Instructions on Forest Works and also agreement conditions. At the hearing, the learned counsel for the petitioner made strenuous efforts to convince this Court that the amounts in respect of which the claims have been made by the petitioner in this Writ Petition are payable under the agreement. I am afraid, this Court while exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India does not entertain money claims and enforcement of a civil liability arising under a contract (see Burmah Construction Co., v. State of Orissa[1], Suganmal v. State of M.P.[2] and Godavari Sugar Mills Limited vs. State of Maharashtra and others[3]). For the abovementioned reasons, the Writ Petition is dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to approach the competent civil Court. As a sequel to dismissal of the Writ Petition, WPMP No.11495 of 2009 filed by the petitioner for early hearing is also dismissed. ____________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Date: 04.03.2011 ES LR copies to be marked. [1] AIR 1962 Supreme Court 1320 [2] AIR 1965 Supreme Court 1740 [3] (2011) 2 SCC 439