THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.27423 of 2011 Date: 30.09.2011 Between: M/s ASIP – AMRCL (JV), Hyderabad, Reptd by its authorized Secretary-A.Murali Krishna ..... Petitioner AND Government of A.P., Reptd by Its Principal Secretary, Municipal Administration, Hyderabad and another. .....Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri C.Raghu Counsel for respondent No.1: AGP for Municipal Administration Counsel for Respondent No.2: Sri C.Damodar Reddy, Standing Counsel for GHMC The Court made the following: ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed to set aside order in proceedings No.353/ENC/GHMC/2011-12, dated 15.09.2011, of respondent No.2, whereby agreement No.61/ENC/GHMC/TA-I/K4/2010, dated 29.11.2010, has been terminated. In the manner the Writ Petition is proposed to be disposed of, it is not necessary to refer to the merits of the case. It will suffice to note that the non-statutory commercial agreement entered into between the petitioner and respondent No.2 has been terminated by the impugned proceedings on the ground that the petitioner failed to achieve the progress in execution of the work in terms of the agreement. Sri C.Raghu, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that before terminating the contract, respondent No.2 failed to issue a notice as envisaged under Clause-61 of Preliminary Specifications to APSS and therefore, the termination is in violation of principles of natural justice and also arbitrary. I am afraid the dispute raised by the petitioner in this Writ Petition is not amenable for adjudication of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India because it arises under a non-statutory concluded contract. The Apex Court in a few judgments held that where the action of the State or its instrumentalities, which are parties to the non- statutory commercial contracts, is per se arbitrary, the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India can entertain the Writ Petitions. (see Mahabir Auto Stores V. Indian Oil Corporation[1] and ABL International Ltd V. Export Credit Guarantee Corporation India Ltd[2]. In the instant case, even though the petitioner claimed that no notice was issued and consequently, termed the impugned termination as illegal, a perusal of letter No.ENC/GHMC/2011-12-166, dated 20/22.06.2011, shows that respondent No.2 has given 14 days’ notice to the petitioner for showing good progress, indicating therein that, failing which, the contract will be determined under Clause- 61 of Preliminary Specifications of APSS, without any further notice. Thus, this is not a case where the action was taken without prior notice. Whether the said notice is adequate or not, and the same is in conformity with Clause-61 of APSS read with Clause-28 of the agreement, are issues which need to be adjudicated by competent Court of law. In this view of the matter, I do not find this a case as falling within the exceptions carved out by the Supreme Court in the matter of entertaining the Writ Petitions filed questioning the termination of concluded non-statutory contracts. Accordingly, while dismissing the Writ Petition, the petitioner is relegated to avail the appropriate remedy in common law in order to question the termination. As a sequel to dismissal of the Writ Petition, W.P.M.P.No.33836 of 2011 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is dismissed as infructuous. __________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 30th September 2011 DR [1] AIR 1990 SC 1031 [2] (2004) 3 SCC 553