IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.PRAKASH RAO and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.Y.SOMAYAJULU WRIT PETITION No. 3912 of 2006 Between: Sri G. Venkateswara Rao, S/o. Chenchaiah, R/o. H.No.5-1-29/A, Near District Court, Wiyra road, Khammam, Khammam District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Managing Director, A.P. Road Development Corporation & Engineer-in-Chief (R&B) Admin.& NABARD, Errumanzil, Hyderabad. A.P. 2 Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Nampally, Govt. of A.P., Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court may be pleased to issue an order or direction, more particularly, in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the 1st respondent corporation in not increasing the sales tax component from 2% to 4% as illegal, arbitrary and whimsical and (ii) direct the respondent authorities to deduct tax after giving effect to the decision of the Government and increase the sales tax component to 4% of the contract value as against the pre-existing rate 2% of the contract value. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.V.V.ANIL KUMAR Counsel for the Respondents: MR K. RAJI REDDY SPL.S.C. FOR COMMERCIAL TAX The Court made the following: THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B. PRAKASH RAO AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE C.Y. SOMAYAJULU WRIT PETITION No.3912 OF 2006 ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice B. Prakash Rao) Heard Sri V.V. Anil Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Sri K. Raji Reddy, Special Standing Counsel for Commercial Tax appearing on behalf of the respondents. Learned counsel on either side submitted that the issue involved in this writ petition is squarely covered by a Judgment of this Court in W.P.No.25589 of 2005, dated 07.03.2006, wherein this Court observed that these are the matters which can be gone into by the Arbitrator, as the agreement provides for arbitration. Accordingly, following the aforesaid Judgment, before the petitioner applies for arbitration, we also give him liberty to make a representation to respondent No.2, who may consider the matter and pass appropriate orders within a period of two weeks of making such representation. Writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of. No order as to costs. ______________________ JUSTICE B.PRAKASH RAO _____________________ JUSTICE C.Y. SOMAYAJULU 17th April, 2008. IBL To 1 The Managing Director, A.P. Road Development Corporation & Engineer-in-Chief (R&B) Admin.& NABARD, Errumanzil, Hyderabad. A.P. 2 The Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Nampally, Govt. of A.P., Hyderabad. 3 Two CD Copies