IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION No. 25859 of 2008 Between: M/s. Vignesh Traders, a proprietary concern, rep. by its proprietor, V. Narendra Babu son of Nagaraja Chetty, R/o. D.No. 13/86, Kasa Garden, P.N. Road, Srikalahasti, Chittoor District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Government of A.P., rep. By its Commissioner, Endowments Department, Hyderabad. 2 Srikalahasteeswara Swamy Devasthanams, Srikalahasthi, Chittoor District, rep. by its Executive Officer. .....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to to issue any appropriate Writ, Order or direction preferably a Writ in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the inaction of the 1st and 2nd respondents in not disposing of the representation of the petitioner dt. 10-11-2008 made to the respondent which was forwarded to the 2nd respondent in N.Dis.No. H2/48708/08 dt. 10-11-2008 and also the action of the 1st respondent in publishing the tender vide RC No. G/3100/2008 dt. 13-11-2008 in the Eenadu Telugu Daily Newspaper on 23-11-2008 without disposing of the representation of the petitioner dt. 10.11.2008 as endorsed by the 1st respondent as being illegal, arbitrary, unjust, contrary to the principles of natural justice and doctrine of legitimate expectation and also in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the 2nd respondent to dispose of the said representation on merits and till then not to finalize the said tender notification and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.M.DORAI RAJ Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR ENDOWMENTS THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION No. 25859 of 2008 ORDER: The petitioner, a trader entered into an agreement with the second respondent-Devasthanam to supply groceries for a period of six months from 01-06-2008 to 30-11-2008. His grievance, in short, is that the tremendous rise in prices had resulted in his suffering losses for a sum exceeding Rs.15.00 lakhs and, with a view to recoup atleast a part thereof, he had requested the Commissioner of Endowments, vide letter dated 10-11-2008, to extend his period of contract from 30-11-2008 to 30-05-2009. Sri M.Dorai Raj, learned counsel for the petitioner, would point out that, though the Commissioner had forwarded a copy of the petitioner’s representation to the Executive Officer for necessary action, the second respondent had not considered the said representation till date and that, in the meanwhile, a tender notification was issued on 13-11-2008 inviting applications afresh for supply of groceries to the temple. Learned counsel would state that the last date for issuing tender forms is today i.e. 26-11-2008. Sri V.T.M.Prasad, learned standing counsel for the second respondent-Devasthanam, would point out that, since the agreement was for a specific period of six months, no right enures in the petitioner’s favour to claim extension. Learned counsel would state that the second respondent-Devasthanam had issued a notification inviting bids with a view to maximize its revenues and that nothing prevented the petitioner from participating in the tender process. Learned standing counsel would emphasize that, in the absence of any condition in the agreement providing for extension of lease, the petitioner was not entitled to claim extension as a matter of right. There is no dispute about the proposition that, in the case of concluded non-statutory contracts this Court, would, ordinarily, refrain from exercising jurisdiction and the person invoking this Court’s jurisdiction would be relegated to remedy of a Civil Suit to have such contractual disputes resolved. While the petitioner may, indeed, have suffered losses, this Court would not be justified in issuing a mandamus to the respondents to extend the lease in the absence of any statutory obligation necessitating the respondent- Devasthanam to compensate the petitioner for the losses he incurred. The petitioner, having entered into the agreement on his free will, and with his eyes wide open, cannot be heard to contend that the losses he suffered, for which the Devasthanam was in no way to blame, should be compensated by way of a further extension of lease. While it is always open to the second respondent to consider such a representation, the only direction which can be issued to the Devasthanam is that the petitioner shall be permitted to participate in the tender process, if he fulfills the prescribed conditions, and that filing of this writ petition shall not be construed as a bar for his participating, along with others, in the tender process. The writ petition stands disposed of accordingly. No order as to costs. RAMESH RANGANATHAN,J Dt:26-11-2008 usd