Telangana High Court
WA/2200/2004 of Balla Lakshmana Rao, Vs The District Collector, Vizianagaram District, on 31 December 2004
COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE THIRTY FIRST DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND FOUR PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI DEVINDER GUPTA, CHIEF JUSTICE and THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE M.NARAYANA REDDY WRIT APPEAL No. 2200 of 2004 AND WRIT PETITION No.10618 OF 2004 WRIT APPEAL No. 2200
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD
FRIDAY, THE THIRTY FIRST DAY OF DECEMBERTWO THOUSAND AND FOUR
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE SRI DEVINDER GUPTA, CHIEF JUSTICE
and
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE M.NARAYANA REDDY
WRIT APPEAL No. 2200 of 2004
AND
WRIT PETITION No.10618 OF 2004
WRIT APPEAL No. 2200 of 2004
(Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Order dated17/11/2004 in WPMP No.25902 of 2004 in WP No. 10618 OF 2004 on the file of the High Court.)
Between:
Balla Lakshmana Rao, S/o. Nageswara Rao, Hindu, R/o. Indira Nagar, Near S.P. Bangalow, Vizianagaram, Vizianagaram District.
..... APPELLANT
AND
1.The District Collector, Vizianagaram District, Vizianagaram.
2.The Vizianagaram Municipality, Vizianagaram, Rep. by its Commissioner,
3.The Vizianagaram Municipality, Vizianagaram, Rep. by its Engineer, Grade-I,Vizianagaram.Vizianagaram.
4.The Vizianagaram Municipality, Vizianagaram, Rep. by its Deputy ExecutivEngineer, Vizianagaram.Engineer, Vizianagaram.
5.The Vizianagaram Municipality, Vizianagaram, Rep. by its Assistant Engineer,Vizianagaram.
.....RESPONDENTS
Counsel for the Appellant: Mr. METTACHENDRA SEKHAR RAO
Counsel for the Respondent No.1: GP FOR REVENUE
Counsel for Respondents 2 to 5: Mr.S.ageswara Reddy.
WRIT PETITION No.10618 OF 2004
Between:
Balla Lakshmana Rao, S/o.Nageswara Rao,R/o.Indira Nagar, near S.P.Bangalow,Vizianagaram,Dist.
AND
..... PETITIONER
1.The District Collector, Vizianagaram Dist. Vizianagaram.
2.The Vizianagaram Municipality, Vizianagaram. rep. by its Commissioner.3.The Vizianagaram Municipality, Vizianagaram rep. by its Engineer,Grade-I,Vizianagaram.4. The Vizianagaram Municipality, Vizianagaram, rep. by its Deputy ExecutiveEngineer, Vizianagaram.5. The Vizianagaram Municipality, Vizianagaram, rep. by its Asst.Engineer,Vizianagaram.
.....RESPONDENTS
Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in thecircumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court may be pleased toissue a writ or direction, more particularly, one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, orany other appropriate writ, to direct the respondents to finalize the bill amount ofRs.12,16,817/-as per M-Book i.e.1/02-03 A.E.Electrical Engineer, VizianagaramMunicipality, Vizianagaram, and pay an amount of Rs,10,66,817/- (12,16,817-1,50,000) to the petitioner forthwith.
Counsel for the Appellant/petitioner: Mr.Metta Chandrasekhar Rao Counsel for the Respondent No.1 in WA & WP: GP FOR REVENUE
Counsel for Respondents 2 to 5 in WA & WP: Mr.S. Nageswara Reddy.
The Court made the following :
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORAL JUDGMENT:
(per The Honourable Sri Devinder Gupta, the Chief Justice)
The Writ Petition was dismissed for default. Application for restoration, when filed,was also dismissed on the ground that the counsel appearing for the counsel forpetitioner requested for adjournment in the said application also.
We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and been taken through therecord.
We are of the view that that the Writ Petition can be disposed of by a short order. Weallow the Writ Appeal and set aside the order of dismissal of the restorationapplication and order the restoration of the Writ Petition.
Writ Petition was filed by the petitioner alleging that the respondents are notfinalizing the bill amount as per M.Book, and, are not paying the amount to thepetitioner forthwith. Petitioner says that work was carried out by the petitioner, whichwas allotted to him. Work was completed within a period of 11 months and 5 dayswithout any disturbance. The fifth respondent measured the execution of work andnoted the same in M.Book. Thereafter, entire amount was not paid and only anamount of Rs.1,50,000/- was paid out of the total amount of Rs.12,16,817-00, and,despite request thereafter, bill amount has not been settled.
The transaction between the parties being purely of contractual in nature, in case,petitioner is aggrieved, his remedy will be to file suit for recovery, and, in case, thereis arbitration clause, to invoke the same to have the matter referred to the arbitrator.Filing of Writ Petition is misconceived. There is no document placed on record toshow that there was any acknowledgement of respondents of the amount due andpayable to the petitioner. As such, we dismiss the Writ Petition and relegate theappellant for invocation of civil court jurisdiction or to seek arbitration. No costs.
______________________
31-12-2004
________________________
M.NARAYANA REDDY, J.
VR.
To
1. The District Collector, Vizianagaram District, Vizianagaram.
2. The Commissioner, Vizianagaram Municipality, Vizianagaram.
3. The Engineer, Grade-I, Vizianagaram Municipality, Vizianagaram.
4. The Deputy Executive Engineer, Vizianagaram Municipality, Vizianagaram.
5. The Assistant Engineer, Vizianagaram Municipality, Vizianagaram.
6. Two CCs to Government Pleader for Revenue, High Court Buildings, Hyderabad (OUT).
7. Two CD copies.