IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) PRESENT: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY TUESDAY, THE NINETH DAY OF JUNE, TWO THOUSAND NINE ONLY WRIT PETITION No.18604 of 2006 Between: The Karimnagar District Rice Millers Welfare Association, Karimnagar District, rep., by its President, Annamaneni Madhava Rao & others. … Petitioners And The District Collector (Civil Supplies), Karimnagar, Karimnagar District & others. … Respondents Counsel for the petitioners : Sri A. Prabhakar Rao Counsel for respondents 1&2: AGP for Civil Supplies Counsel for respondent No.3: Sri B. Anjaneyulu This Court made the following: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.18604 of 2006 ORDER:- At the interlocutory stage, the writ petition is taken up for hearing and disposal with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties. Individual notices dated 24.08.2006 issued by the Area Manager of respondent No.3 Corporation are assailed in this writ petition, wherein it is stated that on account of a mistake occurring in release order (R.O.), the percentage of boiled rice to be delivered by the petitioners after milling and processing was mentioned as 68% instead of 69% and the petitioners were requested to deliver the differential quantity of 1% rice. The main plea of the petitioners in this writ petition is that having mentioned a particular percentage in the release order, respondent No.3 is not justified in demanding higher percentage of rice to be delivered. Sri B. Anjaneyulu, learned counsel for respondent No.3 apart from raising other contentions on merits submitted that the relationship between the petitioners and respondent No.3 is purely governed by a non-statutory contract and therefore the public law remedy of writ petition is not available to them. He also submitted that the impugned notices were only in the nature of a request made by respondent No.3 and that no cause of action has arisen to the petitioners. Having heard Sri A. Prabhakar Rao, learned counsel for the petitioners, I am of the view that the writ petition is premature. While it is not necessary for this Court to delve into the objection raised by the learned Standing Counsel that the writ itself is not maintainable, as this Court is of the opinion that the writ petition itself is premature, the petitioners ought to have given appropriate reply to respondent No.3 instead of filing the present writ petition. A perusal of the impugned notices clearly shows that in view of the mistake, which allegedly occurred in issuing the release orders, the Area Manager of respondent No.3 requested the petitioners to deliver the differential quantity. The said notices cannot, therefore, be termed either as an order or a proceeding by which respondent No.3 wanted to take coercive steps for non-compliance of the request to deliver the differential quantity of 1% rice. In this view of the matter, without going into the merits of the case, the writ petition is disposed of by permitting the petitioners to submit objections to the impugned notices within a period of six weeks from today. On receipt of such objections, respondent No.3 shall pass an appropriate order on merits and communicate the same to the petitioners. If the petitioners feel aggrieved by such an order, they shall be free to avail the appropriate remedy available to them in law. As a sequel to disposal of the writ petition, WPMP.No.23399 of 2006 and WVMP.No.2644 of 2006 are disposed of as infructuous. _____________________________ C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Date: 09.06.2009 ES