HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION No.7262 of 2010 31st March 2010 Between: L.Babu Rao … PETITIONER(S) and The Superintending Engineer, Tribal Welfare, Warangal, Warangal District and others … RESPONDENT(S) HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION No.7262 of 2010 ORDER: Heard Sri P.Lakshma Reddy, Learned counsel for the petitioner and the Learned Government Pleader for Social Welfare. At their request the Writ Petition is being disposed of at the stage of admission. The petitioner is a civil contractor. The first respondent issued a tender notification on 02.01.2009 inviting tenders for laying of a road from Mamidguda to Sathnala village via Salpalaguda, Jamuldhara village of Adilabad District. The petitioner submitted his tender on 17.01.2009, his tender was approved on 27.01.2009 and a contract was entered into on 24.02.2009. The agreement required the work to be completed within a period of six months from the date of the agreement. The petitioner would give reasons as to why the work could not be executed within the stipulated time. On the representation submitted by the petitioner, the first respondent is said to have issued a memo dated 22.10.2009 requesting the second respondent to inspect the worksite and furnish a detailed factual report. On the ground that the second respondent did not conduct an inquiry in this regard, the petitioner is said to have submitted another representation dated 16.11.2009 to the first respondent. Subsequently, the third respondent is said to have addressed a letter dated 26.11.2009 informing the petitioner that he conducted an inquiry on 21.11.2009 and that the local Sarpanch had given a statement that they have not stopped the work but had only asked him to follow the protocol; and he was advised to file an application, seek extension of time, within five days or else he would recommend cancellation of the work. The petitioner claims to have submitted an application seeking extension of time for completing the work. A notice dated 14.1.2009 is said to have been issued by the first respondent requesting the petitioner to apply for extension of time to complete the work. Though the proposal for extension of time is said to have been forwarded, the second respondent, in turn, is said not to have forwarded the proposal to the first respondent. Questioning the inaction on the part of the second respondent, in not forwarding the extension of time proposal to the first respondent, as arbitrary and illegal, the present Writ Petition is filed. The petitioner seeks extension of time for execution of the work in accordance with the terms and conditions of the agreement entered into between him and the second respondent on 24.02.2009. The petitioner, in effect, seeks enforcement of the terms and conditions of the agreement, and adjudication of non-statutory contractual disputes which are better examined in civil proceedings before a Civil Court of competent jurisdiction. I see no reason to exercise discretion to entertain a Writ Petition involving non-statutory contractual disputes or for enforcement of the terms and conditions of such a contract. Leaving it open to the petitioner, if he so choses, to avail the remedy of filing a Civil suit before a Civil Court of competent jurisdiction, the Writ Petition fails and is, accordingly, dismissed. However, in the circumstances, without costs. _____________________________ RAMESH RANGANATHAN,J 31st March 2010 CVRK/MRKR