THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY Writ Petition No.26766 of 2010 DT.17.02.2011 Between: Namagiri Chinranjeevi Babu … Petitioner And The Superintending Engineer, Operation Circle, APEPDCL, Visakhapatnam and another … Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: None appeared Counsel for respondents: Smt.Jyothi Eswar Gogineni The Court made the following ORDER: ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a mandamus to declare the action of the respondents in cancelling Collection Centre Agency held by the petitioner, as illegal and arbitrary. At the hearing, there is no representation for the petitioner. I have heard Smt.Jyothi Eswar Gogineni, learned Standing Counsel for APEPDCL, representing the respondents. The petitioner entered into an agreement with APEPDCL for CSC, ECC and CC bills collection. By proceedings, dated 31.10.2009, issued by respondent No.2, the petitioner was asked to stop his activity from 31.10.2009 duly handing over the balance cash and relevant records to his agent. Various pleas have been raised by the petitioner in order to assail this proceeding. The respondents have filed a detailed counter affidavit, wherein they have referred to various reasons, which impelled them to call off the agreement. In my opinion, it is not necessary to enter into a debate on the legality or otherwise of the impugned order, for the simple reason that a perusal of the agreement between the parties shows that the duration of the contract is only for one year w.e.f., 06.02.2007 and that it may be extended further with the consent of the both the parties (Clause-31). It is not the case of the petitioner that the agreement is in the nature of a statutory contract. The relationship between the petitioner and the respondents is thus purely contractual. As the agreement has stipulated the period, it automatically ceases to exist on the expiry of the period so stipulated, unless the period is extended with the consent of both the parties to the agreement. It is also not the pleaded case of the petitioner that the contract has been extended with the consent of both the parties. Therefore, the petitioner does not have any legally enforceable right for his continuance. Another reason for this Court’s disinclination to interfere with the dispute is, as noted above, the dispute arises under a non-statutory contract. Even if the contract has been terminated contrary to the terms of the agreement, the petitioner can avail the common law remedies for enforcement of the contract or any other relief he may be entitled to under the contract. Therefore, the writ petition is not an appropriate remedy for the petitioner to avail. For both the above-mentioned reasons, the writ petition is dismissed. As a sequel to dismissal of the writ petition, W.P.M.P.No.34197 of 2010 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. (C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J) Date: 17.02.2011 VGB