IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE THIRTY FIRST DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA WRIT PETITION No.6884 of 2008 Between: Gurram Krishna S/o.Rama Rao of M/s. Vijayaram Constructions, O/o. H.No. 7-3-112/3, Vijayaram Nivas, Dwaraka Nagar Colony, Bypass Road, Khammam - 507 002. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Government of A.P. rep. by its Principal Secretary, Panchayat Raj & Rural Development, Secretariat, Hyderabad. 2 The Superintending Engineer, Panchayat Raj Circle, Khammam District, Khammam. 3 The Executive Engineer, Panchayat Raj Division, Khammam. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed herein the High Court may be pleased to issue an order, direction or Writ more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 2nd respondent in terminating the contract vide Prog.No.T2/NABARD/ RIDF.XI/Raghunadhapalem/2006, dt. 14.3.2008 as arbitrary, illegal, unjust and the same is amounting to non application of mind and violative of principles of natural justice and contrary to the 2nd respondent's proceedings dt. 7.3.2008 besides violative of Art. 14 & 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently set aside the same and direct the 2nd respondent to allow the petitioner to complete his contract. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.PEETA RAMAN Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ & RURAL DEV. The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA WRIT PETITION No.6884 of 2008 ORDER: Petitioner is stated to be an experienced contractor and was entrusted the work of providing BT to R/F PWD Road to Raghunadhapalem of Tirumalapalem Mandal, by the respondent- authorities. As per the terms of the contract, the work has to be completed within a period of nine months i.e., before 21.07.2007, but petitioner states that because of various circumstances, he could not complete the work in time. Therefore, the respondent-authorities extended the time upto 31.03.2008. However, the second respondent passed the impugned order on 14.03.2008 terminating the contract. Hence, this writ petition. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj. Prima facie, this Court is of the view that the impugned order appears to be illegal. Having granted time for completion of work till 31.03.2008, the second respondent ought to have waited till 31.03.2008. However, the references in the impugned order and the contentions in the preamble of the said order clearly indicate that the petitioner was given sufficient opportunity to complete the work, but he did not complete the same. But, as the time is granted upto 31.03.2008, the respondent-authorities shall pass appropriate orders, afresh, after 31.03.2008. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed setting aside the order dated 14.03.2008, passed by the second respondent-Superintending Engineer, Panchayat Raj Circle, Khammam District, Khammam. The second respondent is hereby directed to pass appropriate orders afresh after 31.03.2008. There shall be no order as to costs. __________ 31.03.2008 sh ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1 The Principal Secretary, Panchayat Raj & Rural Development, Government of A.P., Secretariat, Hyderabad. 2 The Superintending Engineer, Panchayat Raj Circle, Khammam District, Khammam. 3 The Executive Engineer, Panchayat Raj Division, Khammam. 4. 2CCs to 5. 2CD copies