IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA WRIT PETITION NO : 14263 of 2007 Between: K.Srinivas, S/o.Balaiah, R/o.Bhimavaram,W.G Dist. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The A.P.S.R.T.C, Rep.by its Regional Manager,W.G Dist at Eluru,W.G Dist. 2 The Depot Manager, APSRTC, Bhimavaram Depot,Bhimavaram.W.G Dist. ....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 a writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the proceedings No.M1/1229(1)/2003-BVRM,dt.17-11-2003 of the 2nd respondent as illegal, arbitrary and without jurisdiction and consequently direct the respondents to refund the security deposit of the petitioner of Rs,90326/- and to pass order or orders. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.DADIRADHA KRISHNA Counsel for the Respondent No.: C.PRAKASH REDDY(SC FOR APSRTC) The Court made the following : Order: Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent – A.P.State Road Transport Corporation and at their request, the writ petition is taken up for final disposal at the admission stage itself. The writ petition is filed by the petitioner challenging the proceedings of the 2nd respondent – Depot Manager, APSRTC, Bhimavaram terminating the contract awarded to him and also forfeiting the security deposit. The case of the petitioner is that he was allotted the work of sweeping, washing and maintenance work programme of RTC buses at Bhimavaram Bus Depot for the period from 3.5.1003 to 30.2.2004 on payment of monthly remuneration of Rs.30,123/- and since then he has been discharging the work as per the directions of the Corporation officials. While the matters stood thus, the 2nd respondent issued a show cause notice on 20.10.2003 stating as to why the contract should not be terminated to which he submitted his explanation. The grievance of the petitioner is that without properly considering his explanation, the 2nd respondent passed the impugned proceedings terminating the contract as also forfeiting the security deposit. The respondents filed a detailed counter affidavit inter alia stating that the petitioner was allotted the work for a period of nine months but during the tenure of the work, several reports have been received from the Assistant Engineer (Mechanical), Bhimavaram as well as security branch that the petitioner has not provided sufficient labour to carryout the work allotted to him as per the agreement, due to which the respondent Corporation has suffered damages and tarnished its image. The Assistant Engineer also counseled the petitioner on several times and advised him to provide sufficient men to wash the vehicles during night shifts but the petitioner failed to attend to the works properly, which shows that his performance was not at all satisfactory. Therefore, a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner on 20.10.2003 and also given a chance to improve his work but the petitioner has neither submitted his explanation to the said notice nor attended to the work properly and, therefore, by an office order dated 17.11.2003, his contract was terminated and the security deposit was forfeited as per the terms of the contract. From the above, it is clear that though the petitioner has entered into contract with the 2nd respondent, he has failed to perform his duties properly in spite of several reminders to carry out the allotted works. Once the petitioner enters into a contract, it is his obligation to perform the works allotted to him under the contract. Since he failed to perform his duties, the respondents after following due procedure, terminated the contract and forfeited the security deposit as per the terms of the contract, which requires no interference at the hands of this Court. For the foregoing reasons, the writ petition fails and it is accordingly dismissed. N.V.RAMANA,J DT.19.1.2008 msv