IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TWENTY NINTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.114 of 2009 Between: Sri Sai Laxmi Manpower Suppliers & Cleaning Contractors H.No. 6- 2-50, Sri Krishna Nagar, Near Government Hospital, Khammam, Rep. By its Managing Partner T. Venkateswarlu, S/o. Rattaiah, Aged 46 Years. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 A.P.S.R.T.C.,. Rep. by its Divisional Manager, Hyderabad Division, at C.B.S. Gowliguda, Hyderabad-12. 2 The Depot Manager,' A.P.S.R.T.C,. Hayathnagar Depot, At Hayathnagar, Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI KOWTURU VINAYA KUMAR Counsel for the Respondents:MR. V.S.K.RAMA RAO FOR SRI K.MADHAVA REDDY (SC FOR APSRTC) The Court made the following : ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a mandamus to set aside order, dated 20.12.2008 of the Divisional Manager, Hyderabad of respondent No.1 - Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (for short ‘the Corporation”) whereby the contract standing in the name of the petitioner firm for outsourcing the activities of sweeping, cleaning and washing of buses along with provision of parking drivers for 148 vehicles etc., at Hayathnagar Bus Depot, was terminated. Respondent No.1 entered into an agreement with the petitioner firm for the above-mentioned purpose and the contract is valid from 01.06.2008 to 31.05.2010. As the petitioner’s performance of contract was not found satisfactory, show cause notice, dated 21.11.2008 was issued. Thereafter, the impugned order has been passed terminating the petitioner’s contract. In this Writ Petition, the main ground on which termination of contract is questioned, is that the petitioner was not served with prior notice before passing the impugned order. In the counter affidavit, it is stated by the respondents that the show cause notice was in fact, served under acknowledgement. At the hearing, Sri V.S.K.Rama Rao, learned counsel representing Sri K.Madhava Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for the Corporation produced before this Court the record containing the acknowledgement, which is addressed to Sri K.Venkateswarlu with Door No.6-2-50, Sri Krishna Nagar, Khammam and the same was acknowledged by one person, by name, Ravi. In the reply affidavit, the managing partner of the petitioner firm stated that in the place in which he is staying, there was another person, by name, K.Venkateswarlu and that the person, by name, Ravi, who is stated to have received the show cause notice sent through post, is neither connected with him nor he belongs to his family. Though the notice was issued to Sri T.Venkateswarlu, who is the managing partner of the petitioner firm, as noticed above, the notice was addressed to Sri K.Venkateswarlu. Apart from this, the Corporation is unable to establish the nexus between Ravi, who acknowledged the show cause notice, and Sri T.Venkateswarlu, who is the managing partner of the petitioner firm. In the absence of clear evidence to show that the show cause notice was received by either Sri T.Venkateswarlu, who is the managing partner of the petitioner firm, or any person connected with him or his family members, the plea of the Corporation that the show cause notice was duly served before terminating the contract, cannot be accepted. Since the contract should not have been terminated without the service of notice, the impugned order cannot be sustained. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned order is set aside with liberty to respondent No.1 to initiate fresh action and pass appropriate orders after due notice to the petitioner. _____________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 29.06.2009 Bvv/Kvni