GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH Vs. S V CONTRACTORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) An apparently innocuous order passed in a writ petition directing reference of the dispute to arbitration based upon the consent of the Counsel has given rise to these Writ Appeals.

(2.) The relevant facts are these: The respondent-firm was awarded a contract by the Superintending Engineer, Y.R.P. Circle, Visakhapatnam (3rd appellant herein) for the excavation of Yeleru left main canal between specified kilometres. The agreement in this regard was executed on 16-4-1987. It is the case of the respondent-writ petitioner that while the excavation work was in progress, he was encountered with hard rock which required blasting. In view of the objections from the villagers, controlled blasting had to be resorted to under the instructions of the concerned Engineers. Extra payment over and above the agreement was made only for a quantity of 15 200 cmt. in respect of which a supplemental agreement was also entered into on 24-3-1989 but the Department failed to make payment at the extra rate for the balance work said to have been done by the respondent-writ petitioner. Contending that the action of the concerned authorities in not making the payment at the extra rate applicable for controlled blasting was arbitrary and amounts to breach of promise on the part of the appellants herein, the respondent filed W.P. No. 18280/89 in this Court. In the writ petition, the relief sought for was "to direct respondents to make the payment of extra expenditure incurred by the petitioner in connection with control blasting after excluding Rs.48/- per cmt. covered by the agreement and after taking proper measurements of the work done by the petitioner and to pass such other order as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case."

(3.) In the counter filed by the appellants herein, the claim of the writ petitioner was resisted. In the counter an objection was taken to the very maintainability of the writ petition on the ground that the matter relates to a contract and the writ petitioner has a remedy by way of arbitration. With regard to merits, the claim of the writ petitioner that he carried out controlled blasting over and above the quantities for which payment was made, was denied. It was stated that in order to avoid objections from the villagers, the contractor was asked to carry out controlled blasting only in relation to an identified stretch for which payment had been arranged to him as per the supplemental agreement referred to above. The appellants therefore denied their liability to pay any extra amount.