THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY W.P.Nos.775, 777 & 794 of 2010 Date : 31-8-2010 Between : M/s.K.Nageswara Rao & Company, Represented by its partner Sri Y.Suryachandra Rao, D.No.49-27-4/1, 2nd floor, Madhuranagar, Visakhapatnam. .. Petitioner And Eastern Power Distribution Company of A.P. Ltd., represented by its Chairman & Managing Director, Visakhapatnam and others .. Respondents Counsel for petitioners : Sri C.Raghu Standing Counsel for respondents : Smt.Gogineni Jyothi Eswar The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY W.P.Nos.775, 777 & 794 of 2010 COMMON ORDER: These three Writ Petitions raise common questions of fact and law and therefore they are heard and decided together. The petitioners are appointed as private accounting agencies for the erstwhile A.P. State Electricity Board to which respondent No.1 in these Writ Petitions has succeeded. Separate agreements were entered into between the petitioners and the erstwhile A.P. State Electricity Board initially for a period of one year. Thereafter, the petitioners were continued as private accounting agencies without execution of fresh agreements. After coming into existence of respondent No.1, agreements were entered into on 3-8-2005 for a period of one year. Even thereafter, the petitioners were continued without fresh agreements being entered into. Under the impugned communications issued by respondent No.3, the petitioners were informed that as there was no necessity for private accounting agencies in E.R.Os. as the staff of respondent No.1 itself was able to look after the work and also in view of the Revenue Assurance System, respondent No.3 has terminated the agreements under the said communications by giving one months’ notice. In these Writ Petitions, the sole plea on which the impugned communications have been assailed is that respondent No.3 has no power or authority to terminate the agreements. Sri C.Raghu, the learned Counsel for the petitioners, in order to buttress this plea, placed reliance on Clause-11 of Part-C of the Agreement dated 3-8- 2005 which reads as under : “Accounting Agency or the EPDC of AP Ltd., represented by its Superintending Engineer or Chairman & Managing Director, if desired can get the agreement terminated issuing one months’ notice. Accounting Agency has the option to terminate the agreement by issuing three months notice to the Superintending Engineer.” On the basis of the above reproduced Clause, the learned Counsel for the petitioners submitted that respondent No.3 cannot act independently and on his own without there being a prior decision taken by respondent No.1-Company. In the counter affidavit filed by respondent No.3, while taking the stand that either the Chairman and Managing Director of the 1st respondent-Company or respondent No.3 himself is empowered to terminate the agreement, it is however stated in para-12 as under : “In reply to the averments made in para-16 of the affidavit, I submit that the averment of the petitioner that the 3rd respondent has unilaterally taken decision to terminate the agreement and has not been acting pursuant to any decision taken by the 1st respondent is not correct since the 3rd respondent has acted on the orders of the Management communicated by its CGM (Expr) in his Memo 1251/09 dated 21-12-2009.” At the hearing, Smt.Gogineni Jyothi Eswar, learned Standing Counsel representing the respondents placed before the Court the Memo dated 21-12-2009 referred to in the above reproduced para wherein it is stated as under : “It has been decided by the management that the Private Accounting Agencies in Anakapalli ERO, dispense with immediately duly ensuring that our regular ERO activities do not suffer. The Superintending Engineer/Operation/Visakhapatnam is here by instructed to dispense the private accounting agencies in ERO Anakapalli and submit report complaints immediately.” Having perused the above noted Memo, I am of the opinion that the issue whether respondent No.3 is entitled to terminate the agreements on his own, has become irrelevant because the said Memo clearly stated that the Management has decided to dispense with the private accounting agencies. As such, the impugned order of termination was issued by respondent No.3 in pursuance of the decision of the Management i.e., respondent No.1. No other point has been argued by the learned counsel for the petitioners. In view of the above, I do not find any merit in these Writ Petitions and the same are accordingly dismissed. As a sequel, all the Miscellaneous Petitions are disposed of as infructuous. No costs. ________________________ Justice C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy Date : 31-8-2010 AM