THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.9019 of 2011 Date:06.04.2011 Between: M.Vykunta Vasudeva ..... Petitioner AND The District Panchayat Officer, Krishna District and others .....Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri Y.Subrahmanyam Counsel for Respondent No.1: Assistant Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj Counsel for Respondent No.2: Assistant Government Pleader for Mines & Geology Counsel for Respondent No.3: -- The Court made the following: ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a mandamus to declare the action of respondent No.3 in preventing the petitioner from digging and removing the black soil/earth of Pedda Cheruvu Tank in an extent of Acs.6.84 cents in R.S.No.257/2 of China Ogirala Village, Vuyyuru Mandal, Krishna District, even before completion of the work entrusted to the petitioner as illegal and arbitrary. I have heard Sri Y.Subrahmanyam, learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record. In response to a tender notification issued by respondent No.3 for execution of work of strengthening the bunds of the abovementioned tank and to sell earth/black soil in excess of the required quantity for strengthening bunds, the petitioner filed his tender and emerged the highest bidder in the public auction. The petitioner offered a sum of Rs.1,80,500/- which was accepted and work order dated 20.01.2011 was issued by the Panchayat Secretary of respondent No.3. It is specifically stipulated in the said work order that the petitioner shall complete the work and handover the tank within a period of 71 days from the date of receipt of the work order. The petitioner has pleaded that as the work order was communicated to the concerned official of the mining department on 09.02.2011, there was delay in issuing mining permits as a result of which the petitioner could not commence the work at the earliest leading to non-completion of the work within the stipulated time. The grievance of the petitioner is that without considering this crucial fact, respondent No.3 is insisting on the petitioner to handover the tank even before completion of the work. In my opinion, the dispute raised by the petitioner arises under a concluded contract. A reading of the work order would show that the petitioner is asked to handover the tank within 71 days from the date of receipt of work order. Whether on account of the reasons attributable to the respondents, the work could not be completed or not cannot be decided in a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Such a dispute can be adjudicated by the civil Court only on appreciation of evidence, both oral and documentary adduced by the parties. Therefore, I am not inclined to entertain this writ petition. The petitioner claims that he has already made a representation to respondent No.3 for extension of time. Respondent No.3 is directed to consider the same and pass appropriate order within a period of two weeks from today. If the petitioner feels aggrieved by the decision taken by respondent No.3, he shall be free to approach competent civil Court for redressal of his grievance. Subject to the above directions, the writ petition is dismissed. As a sequel to dismissal of the writ petition, W.P.M.P.No.11187 of 2011 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is dismissed as infructuous. ________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 06th April, 2011 GHN