IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 8731 of 2008 Between: Smt.J.Jaya W/o.Somanatham APSRTC, R/o. Nagarjuna Colony, Mancherial, Adilabad District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The A.P. State Road Transport Corporation, Rep. by its Regional Manager, Adilabad. 2 The Divisional Manager, A.P.S.R.T.C. Adilabad, Adilabad District. 3 The Depot Manager, A.P.S.R.T.C. Mancherial Depot, Adilabad District. 4 The Assistant Engineer (Maintenance), A.P.S.R.T.C. Mancherial Depot, Adilabad District. .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.P.RAMBHOOPAL REDDY Counsel for the Respondents: SMT.P.RAJANI REDDY The Court made the following : ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a writ of mandamus to declare the action of the respondents in not permitting the petitioner to carry out the contract work, namely, sweeping, cleaning, washing and parking of buses at Mancherial Bus Depot, Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation pursuant to proceedings, dated 13.07.2006 issued by respondent No.1, as arbitrary, illegal and contrary to law. Heard Sri P.Rambhoopal Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record. The above described work was entrusted to the petitioner under a contract, which commenced from 13.07.2006 and is due to end on 12.07.2008. Acting on the various complaints received against the petitioner, the Regional Manager, Adilabad issued proceedings, dated 09.01.2007 whereby he terminated the contract of the petitioner with immediate effect duly forfeiting the security deposit. Very curiously, a few days later i.e. on 29.01.2007 respondent No.3 issued a purported notice of termination of contract. The petitioner filed the present writ petition, in which, it is mentioned that notwithstanding the above two proceedings issued by the Regional Manager, Adilabad and respondent No.3 respectively, the petitioner was allowed to execute the contract and on the eve of expiry of the period of contract, respondent No.3 is not permitting the petitioner to continue with the contract. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record, I am of the view that after termination of contract by order, dated 09.01.2007 by the Regional Manager, Adilabad, the petitioner had no right to continue under the contract. Admittedly, the petitioner did not question the validity of termination of contract and allowed the same to become final. On a proper analysis of the events, I have no doubt in my mind that notice, dated 29.01.2007 issued by respondent No.3 proposing to terminate the contract is wholly misconceived, because as on that date, the contract has got already terminated by the Regional Manager, Adilabad under proceedings, dated 09.01.2007. Despite the said termination order, the petitioner claims that she was allowed to execute the work. If this claim is correct, the same is wholly illegal and unauthorized. If at all, the petitioner had the undue benefit of continuing the contract even after termination for about one year three months. At any rate, in view of the termination of contract, the petitioner’s rights if any, under the contract ceased to exist. She cannot, therefore, maintain the present writ petition. For the above-mentioned reasons, the writ petition is dismissed. As a sequel to disposal of main petition, WPMP.No.11583 of 2008 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 21st APRIL, 2008 kvni