THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE DR.G.YETHIRAJULU W.P.No.9177 of 2002 31-01-2008 Between: M/s Bhanu Construction Company Ltd., Rep.by its Managing Director Sri B.V.Rao …. Petitioner And 1. The Transmission Corporation of A.P. Limied, rep.by its Chairman and Managing Director, Vidyut Soudha, Hyderabad. And another …. Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE DR.G.YETHIRAJULU W.P.No.9177 of 2002 O R D E R: This writ petition is filed by the petitioner, seeking to quash the letter bearing No.LR.No.TPT/10/APT/27/99/BCC/64/2002 dated 16.4.2002, passed by the second respondent terminating the contract of the petitioner with the first respondent for supply of Tower lines and accessories and erection of part of Bhimavaram end towards Gudivada. The petitioner entered into a contract with the respondents for erection of electric poles and laying lines within a period of 12 months. He is supposed to complete the work by 11th May, 2002. As the petitioner failed to do the same, the respondents gave about 27 letters requesting him to complete the work, but no progress has been made, therefore, the respondents terminated the contract, as he failed to execute the work as per the terms and conditions of the contract. The petitioner, being aggrieved by the termination of the contract, approached this court contending that he completed the work by 10.5.2002 and submitted a bill for Rs.33,00,000/-, but the respondents withheld the payment on the ground that the petitioner company owes an amount of Rs.27,10,670/- to the former APSEB under the alleged two Arbitration Awards, which are not executable according to law. Subsequently, the second respondent has issued the impugned notice of termination, therefore, it is liable to be set aside. Though the petitioner pleaded that the termination order passed by the respondent is illegal, he has not given any specific instance of illegality committed by the respondents in issuing the impugned notice. In the absence of specific instances of illegality, it is not desirable to interfere with the order passed by the respondents, as there is failure on the part of the petitioner to complete the work as per the terms and conditions of the contract, and as the aggrieved conditions stipulated the termination of the contract for violation of any of the conditions of the agreement, I do not find any illegality in the impugned notice. Therefore, I do not find any grounds to grant any relief to the petitioner. The writ petition is accordingly, dismissed. No order as to costs. __________________ Dr.G.YETHIRAJULU,J 31st January, 2008 PNV THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE DR.G.YETHIRAJULU W.P.No.9177 of 2002 31-01-2008