THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY Writ Petition No.21662 of 2010 ORDER: The petitioner is a propriety concern, established by an Ex-serviceman, by name, Lt. Col. K. Madhava Rao. It was assigned the contract of operating toll plaza on National Highway No.5, between Vijayawada – Gundugolanu section, for a period of one year. It feels aggrieved by the proceedings dated 16-08-2010, issued by the Project Director of National Highways Authority of India, the 2nd respondent herein (for short ‘the Authority’), informing the petitioner that the contract had expired with effect from 31-08-2010. The petitioner contends that though the contract, awarded to it, on 17-08-2009, was for a period of one year, there is a provision for renewal thereof, and that the 2nd respondent was not justified in terminating it. It submits that the 2nd respondent has initiated steps for award of contract to a different agency, and there is absolutely no justification for the 2nd respondent in taking such steps. The 2nd respondent filed a counter-affidavit. It is stated that the contract was only for a period of one year, and the petitioner has no right to continue beyond that date. It is further stated that the authority has decided to run the toll plaza, by itself, and steps initiated by them was only for the purpose of supply of man-power. Heard Sri Venkateswara Rao Gudapati, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri S.S. Varma, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents 1 and 2, and Sri Ponnam Ashok Goud, learned Assistant Solicitor General, for respondent No.3 . The petitioner was awarded the contract to run a toll plaza through agreement dated 17-08-2009. The contract was for a period of one year, and it expired on 31-08-2010. Assuming that there is a provision for renewal, it would depend upon the inclination of the parties, to contract. The petitioner cannot compel the respondents to renew the contract, particularly when they have decided to run the toll plaza, departmentally. The petitioner has paced before this Court, certain proceedings, in relation to that very toll plaza. These, however, are, for supply of man-power. There is nothing to indicate that the contract, to run toll plaza, assigned beyond 31-10-2010, was awarded to any other agency. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. The respondents shall refund the security deposit, if any, made by the petitioner, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J. Dt.28-02-2011. KO