IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF APRIL, TWO THOUSAND EIGHT ONLY PRESENT: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.6558 of 2007 Between: B. Krishnaiah & others. … Petitioners AND The District Collector, Chittoor & others. … Respondents Counsel for the petitioners : None. Counsel for respondents 1 to 4: AGP for Irrigation This Court made the following: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.6558 of 2007 ORDER:- This writ petition is filed for a writ of Mandamus to declare the inaction of respondent No.3 in giving markings for the works awarded in favour of the petitioners at the instance of respondent No.5, as illegal and arbitrary. The petitioners also sought for a consequential direction to respondent No.3 to give the markings forthwith and further award damages for the loss sustained by them due to the inaction of respondent No.4. At the hearing, no one appeared for the petitioners. The record shows that on 30.03.2007 this Court, while granting notice before admission, passed the following order: “From the letter dated 15.02.2007, addressed by the Executive Engineer, Srikalahasthi, the 2nd respondent herein, it is evident that he emphasized upon the necessity to ground the works by 31.03.2007. The 3rd respondent, however, had refused to ground the work, only on the instructions issued by the local M.L.A. as is evident from his letter dated 02.03.2007. Such an approach cannot be countenanced. Hence, the 3rd respondent is directed to ground the works, immediately before the expiry of the current financial year.” In view of the above-reproduced interim order, the grievance of the petitioners is redressed to the substantial extent. As regards the relief of payment of damages, it is not possible for this Court to adjudicate the said dispute, because the claim for damages, which falls in the realm of disputed facts and contentious issues, is required to be adjudicated by a competent civil Court. Therefore, the petitioners are given liberty to approach the Court of competent jurisdiction for damages, if any, suffered by them. Subject to the above observations, the writ petition is disposed of as infructuous. As a sequel to disposal of the writ petition as infructuous, WPMP.No.8386 of 2007 filed by the petitioners for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. ____________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Date: 17.04.2008 ES