HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION No.6979 of 2010 ORDER: The relief sought for in this writ petition is to declare the proceedings issued by the first respondent dated 13.03.2010 as arbitrary, illegal, violative of G.O.Rt.No.4459 dated 27.12.2006 and the terms and conditions of allotment of sanitation contract in proceedings dated 18.04.2008. The Government of Andhra Pradesh issued G.O.Rt.No.4459 dated 27.12.2006 formulating certain guidelines for outsourcing services in Government Departments. In terms of the said G.O., the District Employment Officer, Chittoor, by proceedings dated 28.01.2008, notified the list of registered outsourcing agencies. The petitioner would submit that he participated in the tender process; was granted sanitation contract work, vide proceedings dated 18.04.2008, for a period of two years, from 02.04.2008 till 19.04.2010, and in October, 2008, when new blocks of casualty and other wards were constructed, he was not entrusted with the contract thereat. The petitioner would contend that the Hospital Development Society, by its resolution dated 09.05.2009, resoled to engage a Non-Governmental agency, by name Rayalaseema Seva Samiti, to provide 20 sanitary persons per day to the first respondent – Hospital. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner filed W.P.No.10474 of 2009 and this Court, by order in WPMP. No.13454 of 2009 dated 28.05.2009, granted interim stay. The petitioner would submit that the Superintendent of the first respondent – Hospital had addressed letter dated 13.03.2010, to the Health Officer, TTD, seeking to provide 20 sanitary workers to the new paediatric block in the first respondent –Hospital. He would rely on clause 23 of the terms and conditions of the contract wherein it is stated that areas, other than those mentioned in the tender schedule, may be included from time to time under specific instructions and on mutual agreement. He would contend that, as provided for in clause 23 of the agreement, new areas constructed in the first respondent - Hospital, during the contract period should be entrusted to him. He would claim a right for being entrusted these new areas as flowing from the terms and conditions of the contract. Enforcement of contractual obligations, or to be compensated for breach thereof, are matters which are better adjudicated by a competent Civil Court. I see no reason to exercise discretion under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to entertain a writ petition seeking adjudication of non-statutory contractual disputes or for enforcement of contractual obligations arising therefrom. Leaving it open to the petitioner, if he so chooses, to avail the remedy of filing a Civil Suit before the Civil Court of competent jurisdiction for the relief sought for in the writ petition, the writ petition is dismissed. However, in the circumstances, without costs. ____________ 29-03-2010 usd/asp