IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 5502 of 2008 Between: 1 Y. Krishna Murthy, s/o. Agaiah, R/o. H.No. 3-82, Musthyala (V), Cheriyal (M), Warangal. 2 Ch. Ashok, s/o. Odaiah, Budharam (V), Mulugu, Ghanpur (M), Warangal. 3 A. Nageshwar Rao, s/o. Komuriah, H.No. 2-2, UPL Road, Kesamudram Post and Mandal, Warangal. 4 M. Ranghunath Reddy, s/o. Sammi Reddy, R/o. H.No. 2-187, Chandupatla Street, Parkal, Warangal. 5 B. Shankar Rao, S/o. late Makaiah, R/o. H.No. 1-9, Shivunipalli (V) Ghanpur Station, Warangal. ..... PETITIONERS AND 1 The State of Andhra Pradesh, Department of Civil Supplies, Rep by its Secretary, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad. 2 The Andhra Pradesh State Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd. Civil Supplies Bhavan, H.No. 6-3-655/1/A, Somajiguda, Hyderabad. rep by its Vice- Chairman/Managing Director 3 The Joint Collector and EOED, AP Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd. Warangal. 4 The District Manager, Andhra Pradesh Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd. Warangal. .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioners:MR.P.KESAVA RAO Counsel for the Respondents: AGP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES The Court made the following : ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a writ of mandamus to declare the action of the respondents in issuing tender notice No.Movt. 5(1)/stage- II/2008-09, dated 06.03.2008 inviting sealed tenders for transportation of essential commodities under stage-II from Cherial, Mulugu, Kesamudram, Parkal and Ghanpur Station M.L.S points to the fair price shops for the year 2008-09 as arbitrary, illegal, unjust, violative of the Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India and contrary to the Work Orders. The petitioners also sought for a consequential direction to the respondents to delete the above-mentioned M.L.S points from the impugned notification. Heard Sri P.Kesava Rao, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri D.Linga Rao, learned Standing Counsel for respondent Nos.2 to 4. The petitioners are entrusted with the work of transportation of essential commodities from the above-mentioned MLS points to various fair price shops for the year 2007-08. Work Orders to that effect were issued on different dates in the months of June and July, 2007 in favour of the petitioners. Separate agreements were also entered into by respondent No.2 Corporation with the petitioners. Proceedings, dated 29.06.2007 issued by respondent No.3 in favour of petitioner No.3 show that the contract period will come to an end on 31.03.2008. While so, respondent No.3 issued tender notice, dated 06.03.2008 inviting sealed tenders for transportation of essential commodities from various MLS points to fair price shops located in different Mandals. The MLS points so notified include the above-mentioned MLS points, in respect of which agreements were entered into with the petitioners. It is this tender notice, which is questioned in this writ petition. Sri P.Kesava Rao, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that during the currency of the periods of agreements in respect of the work entrusted to the petitioners, the respondents are not entitled to entrust the same work to third parties. He further submitted that by seeking to entrust the same work during the currency of the petitioners’ agreements periods, the respondents are seeking to terminate the petitioners’ contracts. At the hearing, the learned counsel for the petitioners furnished a copy of the agreement entered into by respondent No.2 with petitioner No.5. Clause 7 of the said agreement reads as under: “VOLUME OF WORK: The Corporation does not guarantee any volume of work any time during the period of the agreement. The mere mention of the item of work in the agreement does not itself confer any right on the contractor to demand that the entire works should necessarily or exclusively be entrusted to him. The Corporation reserves the right to appoint one or more other contractors and distribute the work among them during the currency of this agreement at its unfettered discretion in any manner that it may decide and no claim for compensation shall lie against the Corporation by reason of such division of work. The decision of the Corporation in this matter shall be final and binding on the contractor.” From the above reproduced clause, it is clear that the Corporation reserved the right to appoint one or more other contractors and distribute the work among them during the currency of the agreement and it has got unfettered discretion in that regard. Having entered into the contract containing such a condition, it is not permissible for the petitioners to question the right of the respondents to call for tenders to entrust a part of the work to third parties. Therefore, the grievance of the petitioners raised in this writ petition has no legal basis. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that issuing fresh tender notice and entrusting the work to third parties would result in termination of the petitioners’ work. The petitioners failed to file any material to substantiate this apprehension nor a reading of the impugned tender notice gives rise to such an apprehension. At any rate, in the event the petitioners’ contracts are terminated, that would give rise to a new cause of action to the petitioners, and it shall always be open to them to question the same before an appropriate forum in accordance with the terms of the agreements. Subject to the above observations, the writ petition is dismissed. As a sequel to dismissal of main petition, WPMP.No.7134 of 2008 filed by the petitioners for interim relief is also dismissed. C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 14th MARCH, 2008 kvni