IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) SATURDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF AUGUST, TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.23551 of 2011 Between: ABC Constructions … Petitioner And Govt., of A.P., rep., by its Principal Secretary, Roads & Buildings Department, Hyderabad & others. … Respondents Counsel for the petitioner: Sri T.V.S. Prabhakar Rao Counsel for the respondents: AGP for Roads & Buildings This Court made the following: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.23551 of 2011 ORDER:- This Writ Petition is filed for a Mandamus to set aside proceedings, dated 01.06.2011 of respondent No.4 and the consequential letter, dated 15.07.2011 of respondent No.3. The petitioner was entrusted with the work relating to special repairs at Rajanagaram – Pedaparthi Road from KM 21/500 to 22/000 under an agreement, dated 10.01.2011 for a contract value of Rs.87,85,931/-. The petitioner could not complete the work within the stipulated period of six months. Respondent No.4 vide his proceedings, dated 01.06.2011, has determined the contract. As a consequence of such determination, respondent No.3 addressed letter, dated 15.07.2011 to respondent No.2 to ratify the action of respondent No.4 in determining the contract. These two proceedings are questioned in this Writ Petition. After hearing Sri T.V.S. Prabhakar Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner, I am of the opinion that the action of the respondents in determining a concluded contract is not amenable to the public law remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Ordinarily, the petitioner is required to avail common law remedy challenging the determination of the contract in view of the settled legal position laid down in M/s. Radhakrishna Agarwal and others v. State of Bihar and others[1] and State of U.P. and others v. Bridge and Roof Co., (India) Limited[2]. Having regard to this settled legal position, the Writ Petition is dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to approach the competent forum for redressal of its grievance. As a sequel to dismissal of the Writ Petition, WPMP.No.28848 of 2011 filed by the petitioner for interim is also dismissed. ____________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Date: 20.08.2011 ES [1] AIR 1977 SC 1496 [2] (1996) 6 SCC 22