THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO :26121 of 2009 Date: 9.6.2010 Between: P.R.C. Chandra Associates ..... PETITIONER AND The Assistant Accounts Officer, Operations, E.R.O., Allagadda, Kurnool District and another. .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner: None Counsel for Respondent : Mr. O. Manohar Reddy The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO :26121 of 2009 ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a mandamus to declare the action of respondent No.2 in insisting on the petitioner to nominate P.Guru Divya as agent of the petitioner instead of nominating A.C. Mohan Reddy as its agent, as illegal and arbitrary. At the hearing, there is no representation for the petitioner. I have heard the learned counsel for the respondents and perused the record. The petitioner was appointed as a Private Accounting Agency in the year 1987 by the Electricity Board. In the year 1991, the petitioner has authorised one P. Guru Murthy to act on its behalf. The said Guru Murthy appeared to have died on 2.8.2009. The petitioner claimed that it appointed one A.C. Mohan Reddy in place of late Guru Murthy, as its agent. It is pleaded that instead of accepting the said nominee, respondent no.2 insisted on the petitioner to give authorisation in favour of another person, by name, Guru Divya, daughter of the earlier agent. The petitioner felt aggrieved by this action of respondent No.2. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents, it is stated that as the performance of the agent of the petitioner was not satisfactory, several notices were issued on 28.3.2007, 12.8.2007, 18.11.2008 and 13.4.2009 and proposals were also submitted for termination of the agreement and in that regard notice was issued on 27.4.2009 and further notice was issued on 12.5.2009. As there was no response to the said notices, final notice was served on 27.7.2009 terminating the agency granted in favour of the petitioner. It is further stated that thereafter Kum. Guru Divya was appointed to attend to the PAA ERO work and that an agreement to that effect was entered on 23.1.2009. The respondents denied the allegation that respondent No.2 has insisted on the petitioner to nominate Guru Divya as the petitioner’s agent instead of A.C. Mohan Reddy and stated that such insistence would not arise in view of termination of the agency of the petitioner. No reply affidavit has been filed controverting the above allegations. Therefore I have no reason to accept the averments contained in the counter affidavit. Since the agency of the petitioner was terminated, no relief can be granted to the petitioner in this writ petition. However, if the petitioner feels aggrieved by the termination of the agency, it is entitled to avail appropriate legal remedies available to it. For the above mentioned reasons, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs. __________________________ C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY,J DATE: 9th June, 2010 pnb