IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA WRIT PETITION NO : 2566 of 2009 Between: M/s. Bharath Yuva Samkshema Samgam, Eluru, Rep by its Sri I. Satyanarayana, S/o. Late I Markandeyulu R/o. Power Pet, Eluru, West Godavari District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 To The Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Eluru, West Godavari District. 2 The Chairman, Standing Committee, Municipal Corporation, ELURU. .....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 or order, direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the standing committee resolution No. 65 dated 17-9-2008 is illegal arbitrary and contrary to the law and set aside the same, consequently direct the respondent to follow the terms and conditions of agreement dated 05-8-2008 and grant Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.KUNUKUDURGAPRASAD Counsel for the Respondent No.: MR.S.NAGESWARA REDDY The Court made the following : ORDER: This writ petition is filed by the petitioner – M/s Bharath Yuva Samkshema Sangam, Eluru stating that it entered into an agreement with the respondents to maintain the RR pet park at Eluru for a period of three years on 5.8.2008 but on 17.9.2008 a resolution has been passed by the standing committee of the Municipality canceling the said contract without assigning any reasons and hence this writ petition. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned standing counsel for the respondent Municipality. The main contention advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that after entering into the contract, it spent huge amounts to develop the park and without assigning any reasons, the contract has been cancelled and, therefore, the same is illegal and hence the contract has to be continued as agreed earlier. Admittedly, the petitioner seeks implementation of the contract entered into by it with the respondents. This Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot go into such disputed facts which arise under a contract. Hence, giving liberty to the petitioner to approach the competent civil court seeking appropriate relief, the writ petition is dismissed. N.V.RAMANA,J DT.19.2.2009 msv