IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD WEDNESDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI AND THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT APPEAL NO : 109 of 2009 (Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Order dated 17/11/2008 in WP NO : 19939 OF 2008 on the file of the High Court.) Between: 1 Southern Power Distribution Company of A P Limited, At Tirupathi, Chittoor District, Rep. by its Chairman and Managing Director. 2 The Superintending Engineer, Operation, Electrical Souther Power Distribution Company of AP Limited, Vijayawada, Krishna District. 3 The Divisional Electrical Engineer, Souther Power Distribution Company Of AP Limited, Machilipatnam, Krishna District. 4 The Assistant Divisional Engineer, Souther Power Distribution Company Of AP Limited, Avanigadda, Krishna District. 5 The Additional Assistant Engineer, Souther Power Distribution Company Of AP Limited, Nagayalanka, Krishna District. ..... APPELLANTS AND P. Ananda Rao, S/o. P. Madhusudhan Rao, R/o. Jayapuram Village, Kodur Mandal, Krishna District. .....RESPONDENT Counsel for the Appellant:MR.O.MANOHER REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.: MRKRAGHUVEER REDDY The Court made the following : JUDGMENT: (Per the Hon’ble Sri Justice C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy ) The respondents in W.P. No. 19939 of 2008 filed this Appeal against the order dated 17.11.2008 in W.P.M.P. No. 26027 of 2008 whereby the learned Judge directed the appellants to engage the services of the respondent as soon as the Sub-Station commences its work, if not already commenced. Heard Mr. O.Manohar Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for the appellants and Mr. Sreedhar Reddy, learned counsel for the respondent. Irrespective of the respective contentions of the parties, the admitted fact is that the contract entered into between the appellants and the respondent for maintenance work of 33/11 KV Sub-Station at Etimogga, Nagayalanka Section, Avanigadda Sub-Division, Machilipatnam Division of Krishna District expired on 30.11.2008. Therefore, whether termination of the contract on 10.9.2008 was proper or not, the respondent is not entitled to insist on executing the contract work, after expiry of contract period. Therefore, the order of the learned Single Judge directing the appellants to engage the services of the respondent herein as soon as Sub-Station is commissioned cannot be sustained. Since the claim of the respondent to maintain the Sub-Station stems from the contract, term of which expired on 30.11.2008, the cause in the writ petition does not survive for consideration. The appeal is, therefore, allowed and the writ petition is dismissed as infructuous. The respondent is given liberty to avail common law remedy of filing a civil suit for damages against the appellants for the alleged unlawful termination of the contract, if he so desires. If such a suit is filed, the civil Court shall dispose of the same on its own merits. No costs. _____________________ Justice T. Meena Kumari _________________________ Justice C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy February 4, 2009 MAS