IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH WRIT PETITION NO : 16865 of 2005 Between: Sabbath Technologies Pvt.Ltd., rep., by Managing Director Sri V.B.Venkatanarayana, s/o V.Gangulu R/o 12-1-403, Lalapet, Secunderabad-17. ..... PETITIONER AND A.P.Housing Board, rep., by its Vice Chairman & Managing Director, "Gruhakalpa", M.J.Road, Nampally, Hyderabad-500 001. .....RESPONDENT 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 issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the respondent Board's letter No.4947/K1/PC/2005 dated 12-07-2005 cancelling the work order issued vide letter No.4947/K1/PC/2005 dated 30-03-2005 as illegal, arbitrary, unreasonable, violative of principles of natural justice and consequently set aside the same. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.A.RAVINDER REDDY Counsel for the Respondent: MR.J.PRABHAKAR RAO The Court made the following : O R D E R: Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. None appears for the respondent. No counter has been filed. The petitioner questions the letter of the respondent dated 12-07-2005 in letter No.4947/K1/PC/2005, by which the respondent cancelled the work order issued in favour of the petitioner by letter No.4947/K1/PC/05, dated 30-03-2005. It is stated that the petitioner was awarded the work of service providers to Singapore Class Township in Pocharam under package-II (Cable TV & Internet). As per the terms and conditions of the said work order accepted by the petitioner, he has to conclude the agreement within 45 days from the date of receipt of the said order. But he requested for extension of time for concluding the agreement, which was given up to 22-05-2005 and again time was extended up to 03-06- 2005. Even then, he failed to conclude the agreement by completing the formalities as per the work order. Petitioner has to furnish bank guarantee for Rs.22 lakhs as entry premium, but he failed to furnish the same, therefore, the delay on the part of the petitioner hampered the progress of landscaping work and accordingly the said work order has been cancelled by letter dated 12-07-2005. On 01-08-2005, this Court directed the learned counsel for the petitioner to get instructions with regard to execution of the agreement for entering into the contract, but he had not obtained any instructions. The writ petition was admitted on 16-08-2005, but no counter has been filed. Though no counter has been filed, I am of the opinion that in view of the fact that the work was already cancelled on 12-07-2005, and the petitioner has failed to take any steps to implead the subsequent contractor to whom the work order has been allotted, the question of setting aside the cancellation order dated 12-07-2005 at this juncture does not arise. As the petitioner himself has failed to adhere to the terms and conditions of the work order and also failed to furnish the bank guarantee for Rs.22 lakhs, cancellation of the work order cannot be said to be illegal or arbitrary. For the aforementioned reasons, the writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. ________________ V.ESWARAIAH, J Dated 10th March, 2008 vrn .... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{RS}