IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 6062 of 2009 Between: M/s. Devi Engineering & Constructions, A partnership firm rep. by is Managing Partner A. Adinarayana, S/o. Sri Butchaiah at Peda veedhi, Ambajipet, East Godavari District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Secretary, Irrigation & CAD Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad. 2 Engineer-in-Chief, Major Irrigation, Govt. of A.P., Erramanzil, Hyderabad. 3 The Superintendent Engineer, Irrigation Cirlce, Dowlaiswaram, East Godavari District. 4 The Executive Engineer, Godavari Heads Works Division, Dowlaiswaram, East Godavari District. .....RESPONDENTS 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 an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly a Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in not extending the lease dt. 3.8.2008 till 4.10.2009 as illegal, arbitrary and violative of the principles of natural justice and issue a consequential direction directing the respondents to consider the extension of lease for collection of toll fee on SAC Barriage on the River Godavari at Dowlaiswaram, Vijjeswaram till 4.10.2009 or such date as may be deem fit and proper. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.J.PRABHAKAR Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR IRRIGATION & COMM AREA DEV. The Court made the following ORDER: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY Writ Petition No.6062 of 2009 ORDER: The petitioner was granted lease to collect toll on Sir Arthur Cotton Barrage at Dowlaiswaram, initially from 17.06.2006 to 31.03.2008. On account of stoppage of regular traffic between 01.08.2007 and 28.07.2008, the lease was extended till 02.04.2009. The petitioner submitted a representation, dated 03.03.2009, stating that though the barrage was open for traffic on 28.07.2008, on account of damage to the approach road, the traffic was not full and accordingly, prayed for extension of the lease. Its grievance is that no orders have been passed thereon. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Irrigation and Command Area Development. This Court cannot express any opinion as to the merits or otherwise of the representation made by the petitioner. Further, the relationship between the parties is purely contractual in nature. However, since the duration of the extended lease is coming to end, it is in the fitness of the things that the representation made by the petitioner is disposed of before that date. Hence, the writ petition is disposed of directing that the respondents shall pass appropriate orders on the representation, dated 03.03.2009, submitted by the petitioner before 03.04.2009 and communicate the same to the petitioner. There shall be no order as to costs. ____________________ L.Narasimha Reddy, J Dt.24.03.2009 Note: Issue CC in three days. (b/o) VGB