THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH W.A.M.P.NO.2890 OF 2008 AND W.A.NO.1757 OF 2008 JUDGMENT (Per the Hon’ble Sri Justice D.S.R.Varma) Heard both the sides. 2. In view of the reasons stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the delay of 1053 days in filing the writ appeal is condoned and WPMP.No.2890 of 2008 is accordingly ordered. 3. The writ appeal is filed challenging the order, dated 28.11.2005, passed by the learned single Judge in W.P.No.9906/2005, in dismissing the writ petition. 4. Facts that are not in dispute and that lead to the filing of the writ appeal are as under: 5. The writ petitioner entered into an agreement with the 2nd respondent – the Project Manager, M/s You One Maharia (JV), Site Office, Ravivalasa Village, Laveru Mandal, Srikakulam District, for supply of certain machinery on hire basis. The machinery so hired, were used for the project work of 1st respondent – National Highways Authority of India, represented by its Project Director, Visakhapatnam. Since the project work could not be completed within the prescribed period, the 1st respondent withheld the said machinery. Consequently, the writ petitioner made a representation to the 1st respondent, for release of the said machinery. Upon which, the 2nd respondent made an endorsement stating that he has no objection for release of the said machinery in favour of the writ petitioner. The writ petitioner filed an independent application to the 1st respondent on 28.9.2004 for release of the machinery. The 1st respondent by its letter dated 6.10.2004, informed the writ petitioner that there was no possibility of demobilizing any of the equipment, vehicles or machinery from the work site of the 2nd respondent – contractor. Hence, the writ petition was filed aggrieved thereby. 6. It appears that in the counter it has been brought to the notice of this court that the 1st respondent – National High Ways Authority entered into a contract with the 2nd respondent for a substantial price. There was a complaint against the 2nd respondent that he has furnished fake bank guarantee certificate in favor of the 1st respondent and accordingly a criminal case was registered. This is a disputed question, therefore, this court is not inclined to go into that aspect. 7. In the counter, it was further stated that as per the contractual terms, all the material, vehicles, equipment, etc., which were brought to the work site, is the property of the 1st respondent and hence the same cannot be taken out of the work sector without written permission of the competent authority. In this regard, clauses 54.1 and 63.1 of the contract agreement, which deals with the contractor’s equipment etc., and default of contractor respectively, were made mention of. That aspect has been dealt with by the learned single Judge, therefore, it is not for us to reiterate the effect of those clauses. 8. Eventually, it is the findings of the learned single Judge that the writ petitioner had given on lease the machinery in favour of the 2nd respondent for hire and the 2nd respondent placed them at the work place. When once the machinery had been placed at the work spot, the said property, is deemed to belong to 2nd respondent and the mobility of which, could and should be, only with the permission of the competent authority of the 1st respondent. It is also not the duty or the obligation of the 1st respondent to have any awareness about the arrangements between the writ petitioner and the 2nd respondent. 9. Furthermore, the writ petitioner had no privity of contract with the 1st respondent. On the other hand, the lease has been subsisting between the writ petitioner and the 2nd respondent. 10. Even otherwise, under clause 54.1 of the contract agreement, for breach of the contract, the 1st respondent has the right to withhold any equipment placed at the work spot, irrespective of any contractual obligation between the writ petitioner and the 2nd respondent, regardless of the fact to whomsoever the property actually belongs to. 11. Therefore, when there is a breach, the 1st respondent obviously has a right to withhold any property that is found at the work spot. It is not for the 1st respondent to interpret the terms and conditions of the contract entered into between the writ petitioner and the 2nd respondent. 12. It is for the writ petitioner and the 2nd respondent to settle their scores based on their respective contractual obligations in a proper court, which is no other than a competent civil court or any other forum, permissible under law. This court cannot delve into the merits of the case, particularly enter into the arena of interpretation of the clauses as regards the terms and conditions of the contract between the writ petitioner and the 2nd respondent, or 1st respondent and the 2nd respondent, or the 1st respondent and the writ petitioner. As already pointed out, there is no privity of contract between the 1st respondent and the writ petitioner. 13. Viewed from any angle, the questions on record, being questions of fact and interpretation of the contractual obligations, this court cannot exercise its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and the learned single Judge had rightly rejected the plea of the writ petitioner and dismissed the writ petition. We are in total agreement with the reasoning and the view of the learned single Judge. 14. The writ appeal is accordingly dismissed as devoid of any merit. No costs. ------------------------------------- D.S.R.VARMA,J ----------------------------------------- G.CHANDRAIAH,J DATE:11.12.2008 AVS/LSK