IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 1266 of 2008 Between: K. Samsree Reddy S/o K. Obi Reddy H. No. 5/8, Bhairava Ngar, Anantapur. ..... PETITIONER AND The Superintending Engineer, Operation, APCPDC. Ltd., Kurnool. .....RESPONDENT Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.K.SRINIVASA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent: MR.O.MANOHAR REDDY The Court made the following : Order: This Writ Petition is filed for a writ of Mandamus to set aside proceedings dated 19-12-2007 issued by the respondent, wherein the LS agreement bearing No.79/07- 08, dated 16-11-2007, entered into between the petitioner and the respondent, was terminated with retrospective effect from 01-09-2007. The petitioner also sought for a direction to continue him as contractor in respect of works relating to 132 KV Sub-Station in Kadiri. Heard Sri K.Srinivasa Reddy, learned Counsel for the petitioner, and Sri O.Manohar Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent. In his affidavit, the petitioner averred that he entered into a contract with the respondent for carrying out operation and maintenance work including watch & ward of 33/11 KV Sub-Station in Dharmavaram Sub-Division and also for carrying out operation and maintenance of EHT Sub- Station along with watch and ward assistance for Telecom on works contract basis at 132 KV Sub-Station, Kadiri, for the period from 01-09-2007 to 31-08-2008. The petitioner alleged that due to certain political pressures and the support given by the rival contractor, the contract labour engaged by the petitioner stopped taking the cheques. Even though, after writing letter to the respondent, the petitioner offered the payments through cheques to the contract labour in the presence of the ADE, they refused to take them. The petitioner further alleged that termination of contract on the purported ground of non-payment of wages to the contract labour is arbitrary and illegal. Sri C.Raghunath, Superintending Engineer, TL & SS, Kurnool, filed his counter-affidavit, wherein he denied the allegation that the cheques were issued by the petitioner to the contract labour in the presence of the ADE and that the contract labour refused to take them. He averred that his enquiries with the ADE revealed that the petitioner has not sought to give any cheques to the contract labour in the presence of the ADE. He further averred that he issued notice on 26-11-2007 to the petitioner and all contractors, requesting them to pay the minimum wages to the contract labour engaged by them and to furnish bills to the concerned Assistant Engineers/maintenance for reimbursement; that the said notice was followed by another notice dated 28-11-2007 issued with a similar request; that a reminder was also sent on 01-12-2007 to all the contractors including the petitioner for the said purpose. The respondent further stated that a final notice was issued to the petitioner and the other contractors on 11-12-2007 pointing out therein the clause in the tender specification and requesting them to perform their obligation of payment of wages to the contract labourers on or before 18-12-2007 and indicating to them that the same is final notice and failure to discharge the said obligation under the contract would entail in termination of the contract without any further correspondence. He further stated that having received the said notice, all other contractors complied with the said obligation except the petitioner. He asserted that the petitioner has not paid the wages to the contract labour and the respondent was, therefore, constrained to issue the impugned termination order. He submitted that after receipt of the order of termination, the petitioner sent a fax message on 20-12-2007 stating that he is ready to give cheques to the contract labour. The respondent also stated that after termination of the contract held by the petitioner, the same was awarded in favour of one Y.Sambasiva Reddy, who started paying wages to the contract labour from 01-09-2007. Having considered the submissions of the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the pleadings and documents, I am of the considered view that this Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed for more reasons than one. The contract entered into by the petitioner with respondent is non-statutory in nature. Ordinarily, this Court does not entertain a Writ Petition filed for adjudication of disputes arising out of such a non-statutory contract. The petitioner has not come out with any reasons to convince this Court to take a departure from this ordinary norm. The fact that the contract labourers have not received their wages is not disputed by the petitioner. But, his case is that though he made efforts to make payments to the contract labourers, because of interference by outside forces, he was unsuccessful in the said endeavors. The petitioner’s claim in this regard is specifically denied by the respondent in the counter- affidavit. The question whether, on account of reasons beyond his control, the petitioner was unable to pay the salaries and wages to the contract labourers is correct or not, is required to be adjudicated by the competent civil Court on an analysis of evidence produced by both parties. It is, therefore, not possible for this Court, exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to embark upon such disputed question of fact. If a contract is unlawfully terminated, the person, who suffers such termination, is entitled to claim compensation for the damages he suffered on account of such unlawful termination. Therefore, in the opinion of this Court, the appropriate remedy for the petitioner is to approach the competent civil Court claiming compensation and other reliefs for the alleged illegal termination of the contract. For the above-mentioned reasons, the Writ Petition is dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to approach the competent Court of law for appropriate reliefs. As a sequel to dismissal of the Writ Petition, interim order dated 28-01-2008 in WPMP.No.1515 of 2008 is vacated and WPMP.No.1515 of 2008 and WVMP.No.344 of 2008 are dismissed. ____________________ (C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J) 17-03-2008 LUR