IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 5636 of 2008 Between: Manga Raju S/o.Mallaiah R/o.H.No.2-6-127 Bus Stand road Jangaon Warangal Dist ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The State Of A.P Dept of Civil Supplies Rep.by its Secretary Secretariat Buildings Hyd 2 The Andhra Pradesh State Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd Civil Supplies Bhavan H.No.6-3-655/1/A Somajiguda Hyd Rep.by its Vice Chairman Managing Director 3 The Joint Collector and EOED A.P.Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd Warangal 4 The Dist Manager A.P Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd Warangal .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.P.KESAVA RAO Counsel for the Respondents: AGP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES The Court made the following : ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a writ of mandamus to declare the action of the respondents in issuing tender notice No.Movt. 5(1)/stage- II/2008-09, dated 06.03.2008 inviting sealed tenders for transportation of essential commodities under stage-II from Kodakandla M.L.S point to the fair price shops for the year 2008-09 as arbitrary, illegal, unjust, violative of the Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India and contrary to the Work Order. The petitioner also sought for a consequential direction to the respondents to delete the above-mentioned M.L.S point from the impugned notification. Heard Sri P.Kesava Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri D.Linga Rao, learned Standing Counsel for respondent Nos.2 to 4. The petitioner is entrusted with the work of transportation of essential commodities from the above-mentioned MLS point to various fair price shops for the year 2007-08. Work Order to that effect was issued in favour of the petitioner. Separate agreement was also entered into by respondent No.2 Corporation with the petitioner. Proceedings, dated 08.08.2007 issued by respondent No.4 in favour of the petitioner show that the contract period will come to an end on 31.03.2008. While so, respondent No.3 issued tender notice, dated 06.03.2008 inviting sealed tenders for transportation of essential commodities from various MLS points to fair price shops located in different Mandals. The MLS points so notified include the above-mentioned MLS point, in respect of which agreement was entered into with the petitioner. It is this tender notice, which is questioned in this writ petition. Sri P.Kesava Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that during the currency of the period of agreement in respect of the work entrusted to the petitioner, the respondents are not entitled to entrust the same work to third parties. He further submitted that by seeking to entrust the same work during the currency of the petitioner’s agreement period, the respondents are seeking to terminate the petitioner’s contract. At the hearing, the learned counsel for the petitioner furnished a copy of the agreement entered into by respondent No.2 with the petitioner. Clause 7 of the said agreement reads as under: “VOLUME OF WORK: The Corporation does not guarantee any volume of work any time during the period of the agreement. The mere mention of the item of work in the agreement does not itself confer any right on the contractor to demand that the entire works should necessarily or exclusively be entrusted to him. The Corporation reserves the right to appoint one or more other contractors and distribute the work among them during the currency of this agreement at its unfettered discretion in any manner that it may decide and no claim for compensation shall lie against the Corporation by reason of such division of work. The decision of the Corporation in this matter shall be final and binding on the contractor.” From the above reproduced clause, it is clear that the Corporation reserved the right to appoint one or more other contractors and distribute the work among them during the currency of the agreement and it has got unfettered discretion in that regard. Having entered into the contract containing such a condition, it is not permissible for the petitioner to question the right of the respondents to call for tenders to entrust a part of the work to third parties. Therefore, the grievance of the petitioner raised in this writ petition has no legal basis. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that issuing fresh tender notice and entrusting the work to third parties would result in termination of the petitioner’s work. The petitioner failed to file any material to substantiate this apprehension nor a reading of the impugned tender notice gives rise to such an apprehension. At any rate, in the event the petitioner’s contract is terminated, that would give rise to a new cause of action to the petitioner, and it shall always be open to him to question the same before an appropriate forum in accordance with the terms of the agreement. Subject to the above observations, the writ petition is dismissed. As a sequel to dismissal of main petition, WPMP.No.7326 of 2008 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is also dismissed. C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 14th MARCH, 2008 kvni