HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.25652 of 2009 Dated: 22-01-2010 Between: M/s.Madhavi Enterprises, Hyderabad, rep. by its Proprietor. … Petitioner And The Superintendent, Government E.N.T. hospital, Hyderabad. … Respondent HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.25652 of 2009 ORDER: At the request of the learned counsel for petitioner and the learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondent, this writ petition is disposed of at the stage of admission. 2. The petitioner has questioned the order, dated 19th November 2009, issued in Rc.No.1431/A1/ENT/09, terminating the diet and canteen contract of the petitioner. 3. The petitioner was awarded with the contract for a period of three years, commencing from 01.01.2009, to supply diet to the in- patients and duty doctors of Government E.N.T. hospital. The impugned order is passed, alleging that the diet services of the petitioner are not satisfactory. It is also stated that no detailed reasons have been sited in the impugned order. Mainly, it is the case of the petitioner that though there is an existing contract for a period of three years commencing from 01.01.2009, the impugned orders are passed without giving any opportunity, in violation of the principles of natural justice. Further, it is stated that no reasons have been assigned for passing the impugned orders of cancellation with regard to the alleged non-satisfactory services by the petitioner in supplying diet to the in-patients and duty Doctors. 4. In the counter affidavit, the respondent did not dispute the allegation of the petitioner that no notice was given to him before passing the impugned cancellation orders. The counter states that as there were some complaints from the patients and Doctors with regard to the standard of quality and hygiene of the diet supplied by the petitioner, the impugned orders have been passed, terminating his contract. 5. From the proceedings, dated 16.07.2009, it is clear that the contract period is for three years, commencing from 01.01.2009, which will end by 31.12.2011. In that view of the matter, for termination of the existing contract on any allegations, respondent should have notified to the petitioner with regard to the complaints against him and should have passed appropriate orders only after giving opportunity to him. The impugned order of termination without notice to the petitioner, terminating the existing contract, is in clear violation of the principles of natural justice. 6. In that view of the matter, without going into the complaints alleged to have been made against the petitioner, I deem it appropriate to set aside the impugned order, dated 19.11.2009, leaving it open to the respondent to give notice to the petitioner about the non- satisfactory services in supplying diet by him, and thereafter, to pass appropriate orders. 7. The writ petition is allowed, subject to the aforesaid directions. No order as to costs. ______________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J 22nd January 2010 ajr