IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 11481 of 2008 Between: Sri Kanakamahalakshmi Mahila Mandali H.No.44-15-62/1, Srinivasa Nagar Road, Thatichetlapalem, Visakhapatnam, rep. byits President Smt.K.Bhagyalakshmi. ..... PETITIONER AND The Greater Visakha Municipal Corporation, Visakhapatnam, rep. by its Commissioner. .....RESPONDENT Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondent in rejecting their application for renewing/extending the work order dated 7.9.2007 which was expired by 31.3.2008 only on the sole ground that they filed writ petitions against his abrupt actions of cancellation proceedings and rejecting to receive the application as illegal, arbitrary, mala fide, unjust and against the principles of natural justice and to consequently direct the respondent to renewal/extending the work order dated 7.9.2007 in R.C.No.1020/2005/CMOH/F-4 for the work of sweeping and drainage cleaning in ward No.32 (old ward no.33), Greater Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation and to pass such other further order or orders. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.K.SARVA BHOUMA RAO Counsel for the Respondent.: MR.(SC FOR VUDA)N.RANGA REDDY The Court made the following : ORDER: This writ petition has been filed by Sri Kanakamahalakshmi Mahila Mandali, Visakhapatnam rep. by its President Smt.K.Bhaghyalakshmi assailing the action of the Greater Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation, Visakhapatnam-respondent in rejecting the application for renewal or extending the period of work order dated 07.09.2007. 2. The petitioner Mahila Mandali is a registered one under the Societies Registration Act with Registration No.1972/99. The respondent-Corporation adopted the policy of outsourcing sanitation works in Visakhapatnam city to DWACRA Groups like the petitioner. During the year 2003 sweeping and drainage cleaning work in Ward No.33 of Abidnagar was awarded to the petitioner Mahila Mandali at the rate of Rs.6,600/- per month under the Subhram scheme. Initially it was awarded for 6 months and the period of work was extended from time to time. A year back there was reorganization of the wards. The work area of the petitioner fell in 32nd ward instead of 33rd ward. The latest work order is dated 07.09.2007 for a period of 8 months from 01.08.2007 to 31.08.2007. The respondent-Corporation issued an order dated 07.12.2007 under reference No.RC.11210/07/P.H./F7, whereunder work allotted to the petitioner came to be cancelled. The petitioner Mahila Mandali questioned the said notice by filing W.P.No.1029 of 2008. The petitioner Mahila Mandali also moved W.P.M.P.No.1232 of 2008 in the said writ petition and secured an order of suspension of notice issued by the respondent-Corporation. Subsequently, the writ petition came to be disposed of, by order dated 26.02.2008. The petitioner Mahila Mandali again approached this Court when the respondent refused to receive the application for renewal, by filing W.P.No.6732 of 2008 and the same came to be disposed of by order dated 28.03.2008 with an observation that the corporation is bound to receive and process the application submitted by the petitioner for awarding the contract relating to sanitation work with effect from 01.04.2008. The period of work entrusted to the petitioner Mahila Mandali came to be expired on 31.03.2008. The petitioner Mahila Mandali submitted a representation seeking extension of the period. Their representation came to be rejected under Endorsement dated 09.07.2008. Hence, the writ petition. 3. Rule Nisi came to be issued on 28.05.2008. The respondent-Corporation entered appearance and filed counter-affidavit. Mukesh Kumar Meena, Commissioner, Greater Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation, Visakhapatnam, has sworn to the counter-affidavit. It is stated in the counter affidavit that the sweeping and drainage cleaning work in Ward No.33 of Abidnagar was awarded to the petitioner Mahila Mandali purely on temporary basis and the authorities got full right to cancel the above assigned work at any time without any further intimation in case of unsatisfactory work and the period of work order was only from 01.08.2007 to 31.03.2008. It is further stated that the respondent-Corporation noticed that the sanitation work in the ward allotted to the petitioner Mahila Mandali is not satisfactory and that there is a difference in the names of the persons actually working and the names of persons appearing in the muster register. For the said reasons, the period of work has not been renewed or extended to the petitioner Mahila Mandali, from 01.04.2008. 4. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner Mahila Mandali and learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent-Corporation. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner Mahila Mandali submits that the action of the respondent Corporation in not renewing the work is arbitrary and therefore, the endorsement issued by the respondent-Corporation rejecting the application of the petitioner Mahila Mandali for renewal of the work is liable to be set aside. 6. Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent Corporation submits that the petitioner Mahila Mandali has no legal right to seek extension of the period of work and therefore, no writ of Mandamus can be issued. 7. The writ of Mandamus is a pre-emptory order of Court commanding somebody to do that which he is under a clear legal duty to do. In order to obtain a writ or order in the nature of Mandamus, the applicant must satisfy the following conditions: i. The applicant must show that he has a legal right to the performance of a legal duty (as distinguished from discretion) by the party against whom the mandamus is sought, and such right must be subsisting on the date of petition; ii. The duty that may be enjoined by Mandamus may be one imposed by the Constitution, a statute, common law or by rules or orders having the force of law. 8. Indisputably the period of work entrusted to the petitioner came to be expired by 31.03.2008. The respondent Corporation stated in the counter-affidavit the circumstances under which the application filed by the petitioner Mahila Mandali seeking extension of time came to be rejected. Therefore, the action of the respondent-Corporation in rejecting the application of the petitioner Mahila Mandali seeking extension of period of work cannot be said to be arbitrary. 9. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs. ______________________ B.SESHASAYANA REDDY, J. Date:18th August, 2008. cs ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{MSN}