IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 4584 of 2008 Between: Aravind Singh S/o.B.Ram Prasad, R/o.H.No.6-12-25/3,Namdev Wada Nizamabad ..... PETITIONER AND 1 A.P.State Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd Rep.by its Vice Chairman & Managing Director, Civil Supplies Bhavan, No.6-3-655/1/A, Somajiguda,Hyd 2 The Dist Manager, A.P.State Civil Supplies Corporation, Adilabad, Adilabad Dist 3 Govt.of A.P Rep.by its Secretary Civil Supplies Department, Secretariat,Hyd .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.RAJ KUMAR RUDRA Counsel for Respondent Nos.1&2: SRI D.LINGA RAO Counsel for Respondent No.3: GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES The Court made the following : ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a writ of mandamus to declare the action of respondent No.1 Corporation in not extending the contract work for a further period of four months, as requested by the petitioner in his representation, dated 27.02.2008, as illegal and contrary to the terms and conditions of tender notice. The petitioner sought for a direction to respondent No.1 Corporation to extend the agreement for a further period of four (4) months. The petitioner applied for award of contract for transportation of food grains, pulses or any other commodity entrusted by the Government from time to time, in response to the tender notice issued by respondent No.2 on 24.02.2007, from the Civil Supplies Corporation Godowns to Fair Price shop points for the year 2007-08. After prolonged negotiations, the petitioner’s tender was accepted and an agreement was entered into in August, 2007 between the petitioner and respondent No.1 Corporation. As the duration of the contract was coming to an end by 31.03.2008, the petitioner made representation, dated 27.02.2008, wherein he requested the Vice Chairman and Managing Director of respondent No.1 Corporation to extend the contract for a further period of four months. In his representation, the petitioner pleaded that for no fault on his part, the contract, which ought to have been commenced from 01.04.2007, was commenced only in August, 2007 and that he invested huge amounts legitimately expecting that the contract will be for 12 months. He further pleaded that if the contract is not extended, he will suffer huge loss. As there was no response from respondent No.1 and fresh tenders are called by respondent No.1 for entrusting the transportation work, the petitioner filed the present writ petition. Heard Sri Raj Kumar Rudra, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri D.Linga Rao, learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.1 Corporation. Clause 3 of the agreement entered into between the petitioner and respondent No.1 shows that the same will ordinarily be in force from .08.2007 to 31.03.2008 or till the quantities of food grains, pulses or any other commodity entrusted by the Government from time to time allotted and entrusted to the Contractor during the above period for transport are completely transported. In his affidavit, the petitioner pleaded that due to reasons solely attributable to the respondents, the contract could not be commenced as ordinarily scheduled from 01.04.2007. Having carefully considered the case, I am of the view that the questions raised by the petitioner arise under a commercial contract. Ordinarily, this Court will not decide issues arising under a commercial contract even if one of the contracting parties is a State or its Subordinates. The interpretation of the contract is required to be determined by the Courts exercising jurisdiction under common law, because such questions are required to be adjudicated after considering the evidence adduced by both the parties and it is not possible for this Court exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to embark upon such an adjudicatory process. If denial of extension to the respondents constitutes breach of a term of the agreement, the petitioner is entitled to seek compensation for the damages he would have suffered on account of such non-extension of contract by filing a civil suit. Therefore, the writ petition deserves to be and is accordingly dismissed. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner submitted a representation on 27.02.2008 to the Vice-Chairman and Managing director of respondent No.1 Corporation and that he has not so far disposed of the same. Since the petitioner sought for an innocuous relief of disposal of his representation, the Vice Chairman and Managing Director of respondent No.1 Corporation is directed to dispose of the said representation of the petitioner, if received, within a period of two weeks. C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 4th MARCH, 2008 kvni