The respondent herein filed WP No. 28064 of 2011 seeking a writ of mandamus to declare that the action of the official respondents therein in not releasing the payments pursuant to successful completion of contract as arbitrary and unjust.

2. Learned single Judge, on consideration of the writ petition, came to the conclusion that out of the total amount claimed by the writ petitioner, a sum of Rs.3,95,47,986.50 is undisputed amount. Consequently the learned single Judge disposed of the writ petition by directing the respondent No.2 to make payment of the aforesaid amount to the writ petitioner on ad hoc basis and by further directing both the parties to refer the disputed four items for arbitration.

3. Aggrieved by the said order, the respondents 1 to 3 in the writ petition filed WA No. 48 of 2013 inter alia contending that the writ petition was not maintainable as it was primarily for recovery of the amounts and also that the writ petition could not be entertained when there are disputed questions of facts.

4. During the hearing before us, the learned counsel appearing for the parties almost reached a consensus for referring the matter for arbitration and the consensus was reported to us when we took up the matter for further hearing on 24.1.2013. We accordingly recorded that the learned Advocate General admitted that the amount payable by the appellant to the writ petitioner (respondent in the writ appeal) is Rs.2,65,59,407-00 and with respect to the other disputed amount, the parties agreed to abide by the award of the Arbitrator. We have, accordingly disposed of the writ appeal with the following order.

“This writ appeal is directed against the order, dated 09.02.2012, in W.P.No.28064 of 2011 passed by the learned Single Judge,

On 22.01.2013 when the appeal came up for hearing, on the consent given by the learned counsel for the parties for referring the matter to an Arbitrator for resolving the disputes between the parties, this Court for passing of an order as to appointment of an Arbitrator, adjourned the matter to today.

Today, when the matter is called, the learned Advocate General agreed and admitted that the amount payable by the appellant authorities to the respondent is Rs.2,65,59,407=00. In these circumstances, the authorities are also agreeable to pay the said amount to the respondent subject to the respondent raising an invoice and transferring the total assets to the IT & C Department, Government of Andhra Pradesh. However, the learned counsel for the respondent disputes the condition proposed for payment of admitted amount as above.

Under the circumstances, with the consent of the parties, this Court appoints Justice Sri G.V. Seethapathy, retired judge of this Court, as an Arbitrator in the matter for resolving all the disputes between the parties, including any payment made by the respondent to petitioner. We however make it clear that the remuneration of the learned Arbitrator should be fixed by the learned Arbitrator himself in a meeting to be held with the parties. The costs, charges and expenses to be borne by the parties equally and the remuneration also to be shared equally.

The appeal is disposed of. No costs.”

5. After disposing of the writ appeal, the learned Advocate General has filed WAMP No. 423 of 2013 requesting this Court to modify the order dated 24.1.2013, in the circumstances, as stated in paragraphs 5, 6 and 7 of the affidavit. It is appropriate to extract the same.

“5. I further submit that in the meanwhile the contempt proceedings before the learned Single Judge which stood posted for our appearance on 23.1.2013 was posted to 30.1.2013, in view of the present writ appeal being posted to 24.1.2013.

6. I further submit that on 30.1.2013, the fact of passing of Final Orders by this Hon’ble Court was brought to the notice of the Learned Single Judge. As the order copy in the writ appeal was not received, the Learned Single Judge posted the C.C. 946/2012, to 06.2.2013, by issui