THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI WRIT PETITION No.23849 OF 2008 BETWEEN: N. Rama Krishna Reddy, S/o. late Sankar Reddy, R/o. Thummilla Village, M.P. Vaddepali Mandal, Mahabubnagar District. …. PETITIONER And 1. The District Collector & Chairman, District Rural Development Agency (DRDA), Mahabubnagar, District, Mahabubnagar, and others. …. RESPONDENTS Counsel for petitioners: Sri G. Venkat Reddy Counsel for respondents: G.P. for PR & RD The Court made the following order: ORDER: This writ petition has been filed to declare the order of the 1st respondent, viz., the District Collector and Chairman, District Rural Development Agency, (DRDA) Mahaboobnagar, in Lr.No.P/2989/06 dated 19.04.2008 directing the 3rd respondent, viz., the Executive Engineer, Panchayat Raj Department, Gadwal, to execute the work, which was earlier entrusted to the petitioner through the department, by canceling the earlier agreements, on the ground that the work was not completed within the time, as illegal. It appears that the work was sanctioned for formation of road from Thummilla village to P.Garlapadu village of Vaddepalli Mandal, under the the M.P Local Area Development Scheme. The work was initially meant for being executed through the department, and after the recommendations made by the concerned Member of Parliament, re- allotted the balance work in favour of the petitioner. In pursuance of the said allotment, agreement dated 1.10.2007 was executed between the parties. The petitioner states that he completed 80% of the work and could not complete the balance work due to the onset of monsoon in June 2008 and further states that the work executed was check- measured by the department. As the petitioner did not execute the work completely, the 1st respondent passed the impugned order for cancellation of agreement and for eventual execution of balance work through the department. Heard the learned counsel for both the parties. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner was disabled from executing 100% work on account of the onset of monsoon and the 1st respondent without verifying the said fact has passed the impugned order without issuing notice to the petitioner. He would therefore contend that the said order of the 1st respondent is liable to be set aside. The learned Government pleader, while admitting that the work was entrusted to the petitioner under the agreement dated 1.10.2007, would contend that the petitioner did not execute the work entrusted to him and that the agreement also lapsed by 30.03.2008. The petitioner did not even seek extension of time for the purpose of compliance of balance work. He would therefore submit that the petitioner is not entitled for any relief in this writ petition. I have perused the material filed in the writ petition. Admittedly, the petitioner was entrusted with the work on the agreed conditions as per the agreement dated 1.10.2007. Under the said agreement, 30.03.2008 was fixed as the date for completion of the work. Even according to the submission of the learned counsel and the admission of the petitioner in the affidavit, he had completed only 80% and the remaining 20% of work has not been executed. The non-execution of work in its entirety is therefore a breach of the agreement dated 1.10.2007. It is also not in dispute that the petitioner did not seek for extension of agreement. Therefore, it cannot be said that the impugned order of the 1st respondent is neither illegal nor arbitrary. In view of the specific contractual conditions agreed to by the petitioner, no notice need be given and the principles of natural justice cannot be stretched to the said mutually agreed contracts. The learned counsel for the petitioner would, however, submit that the petitioner is entitled for payment for the work already executed. The respondents in their counter affidavit specifically averred that the petitioner has not executed any work according to the agreement and therefore payment of bills does not arise. This being the disputed question of fact cannot be gone into in this writ petition. It is however open to the petitioner to work out any other remedies available to him under law. There are no merits in the writ petition. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________ NOUSHAD ALI, J. 22nd November, 2010 Js.