THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.12270 of 2006 Date: 14.02.2008 Between: Sainath Agencies, rep., by its Proprietor, Kanigiri Road, Kandukur, Prakasam District & others. … Petitioners AND Engineer-in-Chief, Municipal & Public Health Section, Government of A.P., A.C. Guards, Hyderabad-4 & others. … Respondents Counsel for the petitioners : Sri Satyanarayana Nimmagadda Counsel for respondents 1&2: Assistant Government Pleader for Municipal Administration Counsel for respondent No.3: Smt. Beena for Sri S. Nageswara Reddy THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.12270 of 2006 ORDER:- This writ petition is filed for a writ of mandamus to declare the action of the respondents in not considering the repeated representations of the petitioners for settlement of their claims for the works executed by them for Kandukur Municipality, as illegal and arbitrary. The petitioners claim that they have supplied goods and rendered services in their respective fields of business to respondent No.3 Municipality and that it is due to them different sums of money, which are as follows: “Petitioner No.1 supplied motor spare parts and motor repairing services worth Rs.87,829/- Petitioner No.2 supplied electrical spare parts and services worth Rs.39,606/- Petitioner No.3 supplied spare parts for pipeline interconnections and related services to a tune of Rs.39.165/- Petitioner No.4 supplied services for boring and repairing of tractor worth Rs.23,154/- Petitioner No.5 repaired MCB worth Rs.10,875/-.” The grievance of the petitioners is that though they have been approaching respondent No.3 repeatedly, it is not responding to the request of the petitioners and failed to make payments of the amounts allegedly due to them. No counter-affidavit is filed on behalf of respondent No.3. In the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of respondent No.1, it is stated that the cost of the works, which are undertaken by the petitioners, falls within the exclusive purview of respondent No.3 Municipality and therefore they are not concerned with the claim of the petitioners. Since respondent No.3 has not filed any counter-affidavit denying the claims of the petitioners, it is reasonable to presume that respondent No.3 is due to the petitioners the amounts towards supply of goods and rendition of services. Having received the benefit from the petitioners, respondent No.3 has no justification in law to pay the amounts due to them. In these circumstances, the writ petition is allowed. Respondent No.3 is directed to consider the claims of the petitioners and make payments as are found due to them, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. As a sequel to disposal of the writ petition in the manner indicated above, WPMP.No.15261 of 2006 filed by the petitioners for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. ____________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Date: 14.02.2008 ES