IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION No : 14853 of 2008 Between: Y. Kumari D/o. Y.Appala Raju R/o. 12-4-4169/A, Relliveedhi, Pudimadaka Road, Anakapalli (V&M), Visakhapatnam District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Regional Manager, A.P. State Road Transport Corporation, Visakhapatnam. 2 Depot Manager, A.P. State Road Transport Corporation, Anakapalli-531 001, Visakhapatnam District. .....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 to declare orders by the 1st respondent in terminating the contract vide No.P6/797-(10-8)/07-RM/VSP dt. 04.06.08 as illegal, irregular, arbitrary and contrary to the terms and conditions of contract, violative of Art: 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India ad quash the same consequently direct the respondents to permit the petitioner to continue the contract work of sweeping and maintenance work of Bus Station Complex, Yellamanchilli till completion of contract period. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.RAMA KRISHNA A. Counsel for the Respondent No.: K.MADHAVA REDDY(SC FOR APSRTC) The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI WRIT PETITION No.14853 of 2008 O R D E R: The petitioner herein was granted a contract for sweeping and maintenance of platforms, open spaces and toilets of Yellamanchili Bus Station for a period of two years from 30-01-2007 to 29-01-2009. Accordingly, an agreement was executed between A.P. State Road Transportation and the petitioner. However, the ﬁrst respondent- Regional Manager of the Corporation served a show cause notice dated 15-05-2008 calling upon the petitioner to show cause as to why the contract in her favour should not be terminated alleging that the work of maintenance was found to be unsatisfactory and therefore, as per Clause Nos.36 and 44 of the agreement, the contract in her favour is liable to be terminated. The petitioner states that in response to the said notice, she submitted her explanation on 27-05-2008 denying the allegations. However, without considering the said explanation, the contract in favour of the petitioner was terminated by proceedings of the ﬁrst respondent dated 04-06-2008. Challenging the said order dated 04-06-2008, this writ petition is filed. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned standing counsel appearing for the Corporation. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the impugned order, which was passed without considering the petitioner’s explanation dated 27-05- 2008 is arbitrary, illegal and in violation of principles of natural justice. A perusal of the impugned order of termination itself shows that the contract in favour of the petitioner is terminated on the ground that she failed to submit her explanation to the show cause notice dated 15-05-2008. However, the speciﬁc case of the petitioner is that she submitted her explanation on 27-05-2008 itself before the ﬁrst respondent and a copy of the same is placed before this Court. Having regard to the speciﬁc plea of the petitioner, I am of the opinion that the matter requires reconsideration on the basis of the explanation preferred by the petitioner on 27-05-2008. Accordingly, the impugned order of termination is hereby set aside and the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to consider the petitioner’s explanations dated 27-05-2008 and 19-06-2008 ﬁled as Exs.P.3 and P.5 along with this writ petition and pass appropriate orders afresh following due process of law. No costs. ______________ G. ROHINI,J Date: 15-09-2008 Note: Issue C.C. by tomorrow. B/o KLP