THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO.4896 OF 2010 Dated 4th March, 2010 Between: Mohammed Ghouse …Petitioner And The Union of India and two others …Respondents Counsel for the petitioner: Sri A.Najeeb Khan Counsel for the respondents: Sri B.H.R.Chowdary S.C for SCR The Court made the following ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a Mandamus to declare the action of the respondents in not commencing the contract of leasing of VPH (Parcel Van High Capacity) of 23 tonnes by Train No.7202-8048/ 8047-7201 on round trip basis despite awarding of contract vide letter dated 26.08.2009 as illegal and arbitrary. In response to tender notice dated 29.04.2009, issued by respondents 2 and 3, the petitioner filed his tender for leasing of VPH of 23 tonnes by the above mentioned train. The petitioner claimed that the letter of award dated 26.08.2009 was received by him on 14.10.2009 and that immediately thereafter, he paid sums of Rs.5,50,800/- and Rs.10,160/- by way of FDRs. In the meantime, the petitioner made a request to the respondents to attach VPH by any evening train from Secunderabad station instead of by Train No. 7202- 8048/8047-7201. Through letter dated 12.11.2009, the petitioner informed respondent No.3 that he is going to commence loading of leased parcel van on round trip basis by Train No.7202-8048/8047- 7201 from Secunderabad on 17.11.2009 and from Shalimar on 20.11.2009 duly adjusting the deposit amount of Rs.10,160/- towards the two days’ advance freight. The petitioner again renewed his request to change the train. In response to the said letter, respondent No.3 informed the petitioner vide letter dated 25.11.2009, wherein he stated that the competent authority has not agreed to the petitioner’s request for commencement of lease with effect from 17.11.2009 and has also not agreed to the petitioner’s request for change of train. This communication is questioned in this writ petition. At the hearing, Sri A.Najeeb Khan, learned counsel for the petitioner, contended that the respondents have acted arbitrarily in not accepting the petitioner’s request for commencement of lease from 17.11.2009 and 20.11.2009 from Secunderabad and Shalimar respectively. A perusal of the letter of award of contract shows that Clause (1) thereof prescribes lease period as 3 years and it also envisages that the petitioner should execute the agreement and commence the contract within 14 days from the date of issue of letter of award of lease contract i.e., on or before 08.09.2009 or liable to pay leased freight from the 15th day, failing which the amount will be deducted from the EMD on hand. It is further prescribed therein that violation of any clause stipulated in the tender notification and the letter of award will lead to cancellation of contract and forfeiture of EMD and security deposit. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that as the letter of award of contract was received only in October, the above mentioned clause has become inoperable. I am afraid, this Court cannot go into these issues which arise under a commercial contract. As the dispute arises under a non-statutory contract, ordinarily the petitioner is not entitled to invoke the public law remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Moreover, the issues pertaining to the point of commencement of lease and the interpretation of clause (1) of letter of award of contract fall in the realm of disputed questions of fact and are required to be adjudicated on the basis of evidence to be adduced by the parties to the dispute. Therefore, in my opinion, the petitioner is entitled to invoke the common law remedy of a civil suit. The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed. As a sequel to dismissal of main petition, WPMP No.6312 of 2010 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Dated 4th March, 2010 vrn​