JUDGMENT (Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents 2 & 3 to disburse the amount of Rs.58,49,208/- towards transportation and handling charges payable to the petitioner for the contract period from 2014 to 2016 under the scheme for priceless article distribution forthwith to the petitioner.) 1. The petitioner is a transport Contractor and he has been selected for transportation of free articles such as Mixer-Jar, Fan and Grinder from the Government godown to the distribution centres, as per the direction of revenue officials. The nature of the contract is to transport the priceless articles from the godown to the field distribution centres. The petitioner has approached this Court with a grievance that though he has performed the contract, the respondents have failed to pay his statutory dues for handling and transporting the priceless articles. According to the petitioner, for the contract period 2013-14 i.e., third phase, the respondents 2 & 3 have to pay a sum of Rs.1,81,000/- and for the period of 2014-16 i.e., fourth and fifth phases, they have to pay a sum of Rs.58,49,208/-. Claiming these dues payable by the respondents 2 & 3, the petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking a mandamus to disburse the sum of Rs.58,49,208/- for the contract done from 2014 to 2016 with an interim prayer for a sum of Rs.1,81,000/- and also for disbursing the excess tax amount deducted by the respondents. 2. Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is appointed as the Contractor for the distribution of priceless articles and the petitioner has also performed his duty without any defect. However, the transportation charges were not settled to the petitioner for the years 2014-15 and 2015-16. He also submitted that respondents 2 and 3 are entitled to detect only 2% of Sales Tax, but they have detected 6% of Sales Tax as against the rules in excess. The concerned Tahsildars have expected extraneous considerations from the petitioner and since the petitioner did not oblige to the same, the respondents 2 and 3 have been instructed not to disburse the transportation charges to the petitioner. 3. The concerned Tahsildars have expected extraneous considerations from the petitioner and since the petitioner did not oblige to the same, the respondents 2 and 3 have been instructed not to disburse the transportation charges to the petitioner. 3. The second respondent / District Collector filed a counter affidavit stating that the petitioner was selected as a transport Contractor by the Managing Director of TNCSC for a period of five years and the transportation charges for the three phases, viz., 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14, were settled to the petitioner as per the agreement. The terms of the contract are that the petitioner has to transport from the storage points to the facilities in seven constituencies in Virudhunagar District. However, the petitioner has done the transportation only in three villages in Srivilliputur and failed to transport in other villages in the remaining constituencies. Due to these defaults in the transportation by the petitioners, the Tahsildars concerned have themselves made an interim arrangement for transporting the goods from the storage points by engaging private vehicles. Based on the report of the Tahsildars, a separate report was also sent to the Managing Director of TNCSC, Chennai in letter No.Roc.I8/4439/2013 dated 14.02.2014. 4. The counter affidavit further reads that no bills of this petitioner are pending in the office of the District Collector. The petitioner, without any documents or bills for the transportation of priceless articles, is claiming the amount and on the failure of the petitioner, the Tahsildars have completed the transportation work within the Virudhunagar Districts. The petitioner transported the priceless articles only in three villages in Srivilliputur, for which a bill amount of Rs.1,50,319/- was already settled to the petitioner vide cheque dated 08.03.2014. Further, based on the report of the second respondent, the Regional Manager, TNCSC, Virudhunagar, has also called for an explanation from the petitioner through proceedings in Rc.No.C1/43/2015 dated 14.09.2015, for which the petitioner has not replied till date. Hence, this petition has to be dismissed. 5.This Court considered the rival submissions made and also perused the materials placed on record. 6. The petitioner is an approved Contractor who was selected as a Transport Agency for transporting the priceless gifts provided by the Government, such as Fan, Mixer-Jar and Grinder from the storage godown to the distribution centres in seven Assembly Constituencies of Virudhunagar District. 5.This Court considered the rival submissions made and also perused the materials placed on record. 6. The petitioner is an approved Contractor who was selected as a Transport Agency for transporting the priceless gifts provided by the Government, such as Fan, Mixer-Jar and Grinder from the storage godown to the distribution centres in seven Assembly Constituencies of Virudhunagar District. The tender order in favour of the petitioner was initially issued by Managing Director (TNCSC), Chennai in proceedings No.COM/14/117/2011-10 dated 19.10.2011, for the period 2011-2012 (first phase). The petitioner was also selected as a Contractor for the period 2012-2013 (second phase) and 2013-2014 (third phase). Subsequently, he was selected for 2014-2015 (fourth phase) and 2015-2016 (fifth phase) by the Managing Director (TNCSC) through proceedings in Prog/17/2840/2014-29 dated 18.03.2015 which was communicated by the proceedings of the Regional Manager of TNCSC in Na.Ka.No.C1/436/2015 dated 07.04.2015. 7. It can be seen that the petitioner has transported the articles for the first three phases and received the remuneration for the same. In support of the same, the respondents have also produced the bills raised by the petitioner in 2012 and 2014. The actual dispute is regarding the fourth and fifth phases. The respondents claim that the petitioner has not transported any articles in the fourth and fifth phases and due to this default of the petitioner, the Tahsildars have sent a report to the Managing Director in letter No.Roc.I8/4439/2013 dated 14.02.2014. The Tahsildars have also hired local distributors for transporting and handling of the articles. In the fourth phase of the contract, the petitioner has only transported articles in three villages in Srivilliputhur, for which, a bill amount was raised by the petitioner and after deducting 2% income tax, the balance amount of Rs.1,50,319/- was paid to the petitioner. 8. The petitioner in this writ petition claimed an amount of Rs.58,49,208/- for the contract, but he has not produced any bills regarding the same. The petitioner has neither produced the bills nor any vouchers for transporting the articles during the fourth and fifth phases. Without producing the necessary documents establishing the completion of the contract, the petitioner cannot claim remuneration for the same. 9. The petitioner''s case is that the respondents have engaged him as a transport Contractor and availed his services, but failed to pay the statutory dues payable by them for handling and transporting the priceless articles in Virudhunagar district. Without producing the necessary documents establishing the completion of the contract, the petitioner cannot claim remuneration for the same. 9. The petitioner''s case is that the respondents have engaged him as a transport Contractor and availed his services, but failed to pay the statutory dues payable by them for handling and transporting the priceless articles in Virudhunagar district. However, neither the petitioner nor the respondents have placed the notification calling for the tender for the transportation of the priceless articles. The contract and terms of the contract are not available before the Court. The petitioner was awarded the contract initially for a period of three years and it was extended for a further period of two years. The respondents claim that the petitioner failed to transport the goods as per the terms of the contract and therefore, a show cause notice was issued and his contract was terminated. 10. The show cause notice from the Regional Manager, TNCSC appears to have been issued on 14.09.2015, but there is no reference to this notice in the writ petition. The petitioner has also not given any reply to the same. This Court, in its writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, cannot decide the disputed question of facts between the petitioner and the respondents. The petitioner has not established any statutory right or liability on the respondents to pay these transport charges in the absence of terms of the contract. Given these facts, this Court cannot decide the issue between the petitioner and the respondents. The petitioner claims that the bills have to be raised by the respondents 2 & 3, whereas the respondents 2 & 3 have produced the bills raised by the petitioner during the first three phases. No bills for the years 2014-15 and 2015-16 were produced by the petitioner before this Court. 11. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to entertain this writ petition and this petition is disposed of with a liberty to the petitioner to work out his remedy before the competent civil Court, if so advised. The period of pendency of this writ petition shall be excluded by the concerned civil Court, if any suit is filed regarding the issue involved in this writ petition. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.