Since these two Writ Petitions raise common issues of fact and law, they are heard and being disposed of together.

The short point involved in these two Writ Petitions is whether the petitioner is liable to pay the additional cost in respect of supply of Barytes agreed to be supplied by the respondent during the previous year, but supplied in the next year.

The facts in brief giving rise to this question are that the petitioner entered into separate agreements on 8-8-2011 with the respondent for supply of 'A' and 'B' Grade Barytes, as the case may be. In W.P.No.26321/2012, the petitioner agreed to buy and the respondent agreed to sell 60 Metric Tons (M.Ts.) of 'B' Grade Barytes per annum, which works out to 5000 M.Ts. per month, for a period of three years. In W.P.No.26345/2012, the petitioner agreed to buy and the respondent agreed to sell 2,00,000 M.Ts. of 'A' Grade Barytes, which works out to 16,667 M.Ts. per month, for a period of three years. It is agreed between the parties that in respect of the quantities supplied during the second and third years, the petitioner shall pay increased price @ 5% over the previous year's prices. The first year of supplies commenced from 8-8-2011 and ended on 7-8-2012. It is not in dispute that the petitioner has paid the entire value of the Barytes to be supplied during the first year before the end of the stipulated period. However, the respondent failed to supply the agreed quantities during the said period. When the petitioner approached the respondent, the latter insisted that the former shall pay 5% of the prices over and above the prices at which the Barytes were agreed to be supplied during the first year in respect of the balance supplies meant to be supplied during that year. This action is assailed in this Writ Petition.

On behalf of the respondent, its Vice Chairman and the Managing Director filed a counter-affidavit wherein he sought to justify this action on two grounds, namely, that the buyers who are similarly situated as the petitioner, have paid the additional amount without any demur and that as per the terms of the agreement, the petitioner is liable to pay the prices which were prevailing at the time of supply.

At the hearing, Sri Vedula Srinivas, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the action of the respondent is wholly arbitrary, as having failed to supply the required quantities of the 'A' and 'B' Grade Barytes during the first year, the respondent cannot saddle his client with the additional liability by charging the prices relating to the next year. He submitted that if the respondent has supplied the Barytes as agreed during the first year itself, the necessity of the petitioner to incur the additional expenditure would not have arisen.

Opposing the above submissions, Sri V. Subrahmanyam, learned counsel for the respondent, placed reliance on Clause Nos.4(iv) and 9(iv) of the agreement, to buttress his submission that the petitioner is liable to pay the enhanced prices applicable to the period during which the Barytes are supplied. The learned counsel also placed reliance on Clause No.22 of the agreement in support of his submission that the present Writ Petitions are not maintainable as all the questions, disputes and differences arising in connection with the agreement in question shall be adjudicated by the Civil Court within the local limits of Hyderabad.

I have carefully considered the respective submissions of the learned counsel for the parties. Since the facts in both the cases are identical, except to the extent of variety of the Barytes and their prices, it will suffice if the agreement Clauses in W.P.No.26321/2012 are considered. The relevant Clauses of the agreement are reproduced hereunder:

Clause 4 -(i): The Corporation shall supply to the Buyer 60,000 M.Ts. (Sixty Thousand only) of 'B' grade' Barytes Ore per annum and the Buyer shall purchase the said quantity as per the terms of this contract. The aforesaid obligation shall