THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY Writ Petition No.29706 of 2011 Dated 12th December, 2011 Between: Coramandel Infrastructure (P) Ltd., …Petitioner And The Govt.of Andhra Pradesh, rep.by its Principal Secretary, Irrigation & CAD (MIT-2) Department, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad and others …Respondents Counsel for the petitioner: Sri N.Subba Reddy Counsel for respondent No.4: Sri Harinath Reddy Soma The Court made the following: ORDER: The petitioner, who was granted contract for construction and commissioning on turn key basis of Chandragad, Nagireddy Pally, Bekkerapally LI Schemes on foreshore of Jurala Project in Narva Mandal, Mahaboobnagar District, filed this writ petition feeling aggrieved by the proceedings in letter bearing No.IDC/EE/MBNR/AEE/DB/2011-12/Chandraghad-LIS/626, dated 28.10.2011, whereby respondent No.4 has terminated the said contract. Even though several contentions have been raised by Sri N.Subba Reddy, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner, it is not necessary to deal with the same for the reason that it is admitted by the learned counsel for both the parties that notice, dated 18.10.2011, issued by respondent No.4 calling upon the petitioner to show progress and complete the balance work by 31.10.2011 positively, was received by the petitioner only on 29.10.2011, a day after the termination order was issued. The very purpose of issuing the notice was to alert the petitioner and see to it that it completes the work before the extended date. This purpose is made redundant by respondent No.4 by terminating the contract on 28.10.2011, even before the notice was served on the petitioner. On this short ground alone, the impugned order of termination is set aside. Respondent No.4 is directed to give a fresh opportunity to the petitioner by considering the fact that substantial part of work has already been completed and giving reasonable time to the petitioner for completion of the balance work. In the event the petitioner fails to complete the work within the time that may be stipulated by respondent No.4, he shall be free to take action afresh in accordance with the terms and conditions of the contract. The writ petition is accordingly allowed to the extent indicated above. As a sequel to disposal of the writ petition, W.P.M.P.No.36791 of 2011 is disposed of as infructuous. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 12th December, 2011 VGB