IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF OCTOBER, TWO THOUSAND EIGHT ONLY PRESENT: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.4132 of 2003 Between: L. Krishna Murthy … Petitioner AND The District Collector, Nalgonda, Nalgonda District, & others. … Respondents Counsel for the petitioner : Sri K. Muralidhar Reddy This Court made the following: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.4132 of 2003 ORDER:- This writ petition is ﬁled for a Writ of Mandamus to declare the action of the respondents in not releasing 52 metric tones of rice at a cost of Rs.5.65 ps., per kg towards the balance value of the work executed under Neeru-Meeru programme, as illegal and arbitrary. Heard Sri K. Muralidhar Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner. No one appeared for the respondents. The petitioner, who was the Chairman of Ayacutdar Committee (for short, ‘the Committee’), Pullemla Village, Chandur Mandal, Nalgonda District, entered into an agreement with respondent No.2 on behalf of the Committee for execution of work relating to breach ﬁlling of Pedda Chervu of Pullemla Village, Chandur Mandal. The value of the work is paid in the ratio of 60:40 of cash and rice respectively. The petitioner claimed that subsequently this ratio has been modiﬁed to 50:50. The grievance of the petitioner is that though the execution of the work was completed, the respondents have paid only the cash component without supplying rice. At the stage of admission, this Court by order dated 02.05.2003 in WPMP.No.5418 of 2003 took note of the contention of the respondents that the petitioner is entitled to receive the amount equivalent to the value of 35.39 metric tons as per the calculations of man-days that were generated while completing the work and on the basis of the said representation, this Court directed the respondents to pay the amount on the admitted quantity of rice, namely, 35.39 metric tons. At the hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner stated that the said amount was paid to the petitioner. He, however, pointed out that the balance value for 16.610 metric tons has not been paid. In the counter aﬃdavit ﬁled by respondent No.2, it was averred that the petitioner’s entitlement is only up to 35.39 metric tons. The petitioner ﬁled a copy of the measurement book, wherein it is shown that the value of the work done was Rs.5,87,922/- out of which a sum of Rs.2,93,800/- was deducted towards the value of 52 metric tons at the rate of Rs.5650/- per metric ton. Respondent No.2 further stated that under the “Food for Work” scheme, the Government gave three options, namely, (i) 5 kg rice + Rs.30/- in cash per man-day, (ii) 8 kg rice + Rs.10/- in cash per man-day and (iii) 10 kgs of rice only per man-day and that no where cost of rice was indicated and that for the sake of calculation of the value, the State Government indicated the rate at Rs.5.65 ps., per kg, which was enhanced to Rs.8/- per kg. It is further stated that the total man-days will be calculated based on the work done and rice will be issued based on either of the three options mentioned above. It is also stated that in this case third option is taken into consideration and the rice at the rate of 10 kgs will be issued irrespective of the rate. It is also stated that department is ready to issue the rice as per the man- days generated. The question whether the petitioner is entitled to payment equivalent to 52 metric tons or 35.39 metric tons cannot be decided by this Court while exercising its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It is incumbent upon respondent Nos.2 and 3 to decide the quantum of rice and its resultant value payable to the Committee represented by the petitioner on the basis of the calculation of the man-days recorded in respect of the work executed by the Committee. The writ petition is therefore disposed of with the direction to respondent Nos.2 and 3 to ﬁnalize the bill payable to the petitioner in accordance with the terms of the scheme and the agreement entered into with the petitioner for execution of the abovementioned work, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. ____________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Date: 17.10.2008 ES