THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA WRIT PETITION NO.17770 OF 2009. Date: 26-08-2009 Between:- D. Kishore Kumar .. Petitioner And Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation rep.by its Managing Director, Hyderabad and others. .. Respondents ORDER:- According to the petitioner, he has entered into a contract with the A.P. State Road Transport Corporation, Hyderabad – 1st respondent for the work namely ‘cleaning and washing of buses along with parking duties at Musheerabad depot of Charminar Division, A.P.S.R.T.C.” on 26.03.2008 for a period of two years i.e. from 01.04.2008 to 31.03.2010 and since then he has been executing the contract work promptly. Subsequently, as the Depot Manager, Musheerabad Depot, APSRTC, Hyderabad - 3rd respondent started creating problems, he submitted a written representation to the Regional Manager, A.P.S.R.T.C., Hyderabad on 06.01.2009 seeking appropriate action against the 3rd respondent for smooth running of the contract work. As a counter blast to it, the Divisional Manager, Charminar Division, Hyderabad – 2nd respondent issued a show cause notice No.PA/122(1)/09- DVM/CRT, dated 15.06.2009, stating that he is contravening some of the conditions of the contract and calling upon him to show cause as to why the contract should not be terminated within a period of seven days from the date of receipt of the said notice, for which he gave a detailed reply on 13.07.2009. But, without conducting any enquiry and without providing opportunity, the 2nd respondent issued proceedings No.PA/122(1)/90-DVM/CR, dated 13.08.2009 terminating the contract with immediate effect by forfeiting his security deposit. The same is questioned in this writ petition. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for A.P.S.R.T.C. 3. Having considered the submissions made by both the learned counsel, it is clear that the allegations made against the petitioner are trivial, for which there is no need for the 2nd respondent to terminate the contract. Further, the period of contract is not yet completed and it would end by 31.03.2010. For these reasons, this Court is of the view that the order impugned in this writ petition can be set aside. 4. Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed. The respondents are hereby directed to allow the petitioner to complete the work for which he entered into the contract with them. However, the petitioner is hereby directed to strictly adhere to the terms and conditions of the contract during rest of the period. No costs. ________________________ GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA, J 26th August, 2009 Note:- Furnish CC by four days B/o AMD/CBS