IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION NO : 8982 of 2005 Between: Ankem Harinadha Babu, S/o. Seetharamaih, Hindu,Chevendra, Padana Mandal, Krishna District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The District Collector, Krishna District, Chilakalapudi, Machilipatnam. 2 The District Panchayat Officer, District Collectorate, Chilakalapude, Krishna District. 3 The Panchayatraj Secretary, Secretariat, Hyderabad. 4 The Village Secretary, Chevuri Gram Panchayat, Chevuru, Mudinepalli Mandal, 5 The Sarpanch, Chevuri Gram Panchayat, Chevuru, Mudinepalli Mandal, Krishna District. .....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue an appropriate writ order or direction particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the inaction of the respondents in not setting the final bill in respect of the works carried out by the petitioner pertaining to the laying of metal road under various items within the Chevuru Gram Panchayat, Mudinepalli Mandal, Krishna District in pursuance of the work order dt.01-04-98 issued by 4th respondent- The village Secretary, Chevuru Gram Panchayat, Chevuru, Mudinepalli Mandal, Krishna District as being arbitrary, illega and violative of the fundamental right guaranteed under Articles 14 & 21 and also constitutional guarantee contained under Article 300-A of Constitution of India and consequently to direct the respondents to forthwith prepare the final bill and make payments to the petitioner and pass such other order or orders. Counsel for the Petitioner : MR. SIVALENKA RAMACHANDRA PRASAD Counsel for the Respondents : GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ & RURAL DEV. The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI WRIT PETITION No.8982 OF 2005 ORDER : This writ petition is filed seeking a declaration that the inaction on the part of the respondents in settling the final bill in respect of the work carried out by the petitioner pertaining to laying of metal road within the Chevuru Gram Panchayat, Mudinepalli Mandal, Krishna District as arbitrary and illegal. It is stated that pursuant to the work order dated 1.4.1998 issued by the 4th respondent Gram Panchayat, the petitioner had completed the entire work and submitted the final bills. Since no payment was made in spite of several representations, the petitioner got issued a legal notice dated 31.7.2003 calling upon the respondents to pay the amounts due. The respondents 4 and 5 got issued a reply notice dated 29.9.2003 disputing the entitlement of the petitioner to receive the amounts claimed by him. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition is filed. I have heard the learned counsel for both the parties. According to the petitioner, a sum of Rs.80,491/- is payable towards the value of the work executed by him apart from security deposit of Rs.2,750/-. The petitioner also claims interest at the rate of 18% per annum on the delayed payment with effect from 12.8.1998. Though no counter-affidavit is filed, as could be seen from the reply notice dated 29.9.2003 got issued by the respondents 4 and 5 i.e., the Village Secretary and Sarpanch of Chevuru Gram Panchayat, it is not in dispute that the work in question the total value of which was Rs.1,09,900/- was awarded to the petitioner. However, the respondents 4 and 5 claimed that one Gadde Narsimha Rao who was the Executive Officer of the Gram Panchayat at the relevant point of time did not hand over the records namely the cash books, cheque books, minutes book, miscellaneous receipts books and measurement books etc., to his successor and therefore the measurement books relating to the works done by the petitioner are not available and in the absence of the measurement books or any other material to establish the works executed by the petitioner, the payments could not be made. It is also alleged by the respondents 4 and 5 that the petitioner had colluded with the then Executive Officer and played fraud against the Gram Panchayat to get wrongful gains. From the stand taken by the Gram Panchayat in their Reply notice it is clear that there is a dispute with regard to the execution of the work by the petitioner. Having regard to the said disputed question of fact the petitioners ought to have availed the appropriate common law remedy for redressal of their grievance. The writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot be maintained since on the face of it the relief sought by the petitioner is a money claim which is disputed by the respondents. Hence, the Writ Petition is dismissed leaving it open to the petitioner to work out the appropriate remedy as available under law. No costs. ______________ G. ROHINI, J. Dt. 20.01.2009 gbs