CourtKutchehry.com
High CourtsSingle Bench(2011) 03 AP CK 0082

Rasani Sambaiah vs The State of A.P. and Others

Andhra Pradesh High Court · Decided on 4 March 2011 · Citation: (2011) 4 ALD 134 : (2011) 8 RCR(Civil) 1778

HON’BLE JUDGES
C.V. Nagarjuna Reddy, J
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
Writ Petition No. 8774 of 2009

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

6 paragraphs · 354 words

C.V. Nagarjuna Reddy, J.—This Writ Petition is filed for a Certiorari to quash proceedings dated 20.03.2009 of Respondent No. 4.

2.

After elaborately hearing the learned Counsel for the Petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Forests, I am of the opinion that this Writ Petition in effect raises a money claim by the Petitioner. According to the Petitioner, under the agreement between him and Respondent No. 4, he is entitled to transport charges in respect of 1097.47 cubic meters as against which charges in respect of 900 cubic meters alone were paid leaving balance transport charges in respect of 197.47 cubic meters. It is the further case of the Petitioner that the rates were misquoted by relying on an incorrect FSR code and subsequently the same was rectified.

3.

A detailed counter affidavit is filed by Respondent No. 4 denying the claims of the Petitioner on both the counts. Indeed, at the hearing, the learned Government Pleader for Forests placed reliance on proceedings in Rc. No. 7370/2002/A2, dated 27.02.2007, wherein Respondent No. 4 has informed the Petitioner that if he has any claims to be made, he has to approach the civil Court of competent jurisdiction as per Sl. No. 24 (Annexure-VII-C (Para 2.6.2.4)) of Manual of Instructions on Forest Works and also agreement conditions.

4.

At the hearing, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner made strenuous efforts to convince this Court that the amounts in respect of which the claims have been made by the Petitioner in this Writ Petition are payable under the agreement. I am afraid, this Court while exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India does not entertain money claims and enforcement of a civil liability arising under a contract see Burmah Construction Co. Vs. The State of Orissa and Others, , Suganmal Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and Others,

5.

For the abovementioned reasons, the Writ Petition is dismissed with liberty to the Petitioner to approach the competent civil Court.

6.

As a sequel to dismissal of the Writ Petition, WPMP No. 11495 of 2009 filed by the Petitioner for early hearing is also dismissed.