THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY Writ Petition No.18010 of 2011 Dated 14th September, 2011 Between: International Construction Company …Petitioner And The Govt.of Andhra Pradesh, rep.by its Principal Secretary to Govt., Irrigation & CAD Dept., Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad and others …Respondents Counsel for the petitioner: Sri P.Vinayaka Swamy Counsel for respondent Nos.1, 3 to 5: GP for Irrigation & CAD Counsel for respondent No.2: GP for Finance & Planning The Court made the following: ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a mandamus to declare the inaction of the respondents in complying with G.O.Ms.No.229, Irrigation & C.A.D. (Arb.) Department, dated 03.08.2009, as illegal and arbitrary. The petitioner was a party to the arbitration proceedings and secured an award against the respondents, which was made rule of Court. The award was challenged by the respondents in C.R.P.No.1410 of 1998 and C.M.A.No.142 of 1999 before this Court. A Division Bench of this Court by order, dated 16.07.2007, disposed of the said two cases by permitting the parties to explore the possibility of settlement. The Division Bench has given the following direction: “The parties are at liberty to approach this Court either by way of filing final settlement, which would be arrived at between the parties or the failure report, on the basis of which necessary orders will be passed in terms of settlement or dispose of the matter on merits, if it warrants.” It is the pleaded case of the petitioner that the parties have arrived at a settlement leading to issuance of G.O.Ms.No.229, dated 03.08.2009, whereby the respondents have agreed to accept a sum of Rs.35,00,000/- as their liability towards the petitioner as full and final settlement. The present writ petition is filed by the petitioner with the grievance that the amount covered by the said G.O., is not being paid. In my opinion, the petitioner cannot seek enforcement of the said G.O., for the reason that the Division Bench in its order, which is reproduced above, has given liberty to the parties to approach the Division Bench in either of the two eventualities, namely, their arriving at a final settlement or failing to reach the settlement, to enable the Division Bench to pass necessary orders either in terms of the settlement or dispose of the case on merits. As the settlement was arrived at in pursuance of the Division Bench Judgment, the parties are bound to act in terms thereof. In this view of the matter, the petitioner ought to have filed an appropriate application before the Division Bench in terms of the liberty given to it instead of filing the present writ petition. In the premises as above, the writ petition is dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to avail the remedy in terms of the Division Bench Judgment, dated 16.07.2007, in C.R.P.No.1410 of 1998 and C.M.A.No.142 of 1999. As a sequel to dismissal of the writ petition, W.P.M.P.No.21678 of 2011 is disposed of as infructuous. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 14th September, 2011 VGB