IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF OCTOBER, TWO THOUSAND EIGHT ONLY PRESENT: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.15623 of 2003 Between: Y. Venkat Reddy … Petitioner AND The State of A.P., rep., by the Executive Engineer, Road & Buildings, Mahabubnagar, Mahabubnagar District. … Respondent Counsel for the petitioner : None Counsel for the respondent : AGP for Roads & Buildings This Court made the following: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.15623 of 2003 ORDER:- This writ petition is ﬁled for a Writ of Mandamus to direct the respondents to give entire quantity of 75.67 metric tonnes of rice to the petitioner towards rice component under agreement “Improvements to Amangal – Irvin – Charakonda road from KM 32/0 to 34/0 + 50” in R & B Division, Mahabubnagar, Mahabubnagar District, without applying the revised rate, which came into force with eﬀect from January, 2003. At the hearing, there is no representation for the petitioner. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Roads and Buildings placed before me order dated 19.08.2004 passed by a Division Bench of this Court in WA.No.1154 of 2004, wherein an identical issue was decided. While allowing the writ appeal ﬁled by the Government against the order of the learned Single Judge directing calculation of value of rice at Rs.5.65 ps., per kg, the Division Bench held as under: “We have given our anxious consideration to the rival submissions made. We ﬁnd it diﬃcult to sustain the order passed by the learned single Judge for more than one reason. Firstly, this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot issue directions and that too at the stage of admission which are in the nature of money decree. The case on hand is not one where there is no dispute between the parties. The parties are at variance as to at which rate the writ petitioner is entitled to payment so far as labour component is satisfactorily gone into in a public law remedy. We are in complete agreement with the learned Government Pleader that such orders cannot be passed by this Court even at the admission stage. Admittedly, the dispute between the parties arises out of a concluded contract. The contract undertaken by the petitioner itself is subject to such terms and conditions which are mutually agreed upon and incorporated in the agreement. The contract between the parties is not a statutory contract. The dispute essentially is in the realm of private law remedy. It is not the question of jurisdiction but is one of exercise of jurisdiction. Learned counsel for the writ petitioner may be right to some extent in contending that this Court is not without jurisdiction to entertain the writ petition but as we have observed it is a case of exercise of jurisdiction. The dispute between the parties is required to be resolved in a properly constituted proceedings in accordance with the terms and conditions of agreement entered into by and between the parties. The memorandum dated 27.10.2001 issued by the Government is in the nature of guidelines meant for the authorities concerned and it does not confer any enforceable right upon the writ petitioner.” In view of the above reproduced authoritative pronouncement of the Division Bench, the writ petition, which also raised an identical issue, is dismissed. ____________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Date: 24.10.2008 ES