IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM WRIT PETITION NO : 5678 of 2008 Between: 1 B.Seshagiri Rao, S/o.B.Narayana Rao, Sundries Market Contractor, R/o.Flat No. 104, Yagunti Mini Apartments, Tambala Davruvu, Near Chebrtalu Hanumaya Compound, Guntur,District. 2 B.Bangaru Babu, S/o.B.Narayana Rao, Sundries Market Contractor, R/o.Flat No. 104, Yagunti Mini Apartments, Tambala Davruvu, Near Chebrtalu Hanumaya Compound, Guntur,District. ..... PETITIONER(S) AND Guntur Municipal Corporation, rep by its Commissioer, Guntur,Guntur District., .....RESPONDENT 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 of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ declaring that the action of the respondent in not considering the representation made by the petitioners herein is arbitrary and against the principles of natural justice, hence this Hon'ble Court may direct the respondents to consider the representation of the petitioner and grant such Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.N.SREEKANTH Counsel for the Respondent No.: MR.B.VENKATARATNAM The Court made the following : ORAL ORDER: Writ Petition is fundamentally misconceived. The petitioners (who are brothers) were awarded a contract for collection of “Sundries Market Fee” in respect of Guntur Market yard for Rs.18,25,000/- for the year 2007-08. According to the petitioners, on account of various factors including rains and floods; introduction of new business enterprises such as; Reliance Fresh, Subhiksha, Trinethra Stores and the like, they could not pursue a profitable venture and sustained loss also due to escalating overhead expenses. In the circumstances, the petitioners submitted representations to the respondent-Corporation for award of the contract for the ensuing year 2008-09, with in increase of only 10% on preceding year’s value. Aggrieved that the several representations made by them have not been considered and that the respondent-Corporation might proceed to issue a fresh auction/tender notification for the year 2008-09, the writ petition is filed. The representations submitted by the petitioners are neither statutory appeals nor revisions. The lawful procedure for the respondent-Corporation while entering into contracts with private individuals or associations for grant of State largesse is by following a transparent method by way of an auction or a public tender. No amount of persuasion by the petitioners can relieve the respondent-Corporation of this public law obligation. In the absence of any legal right enuring in the petitioners or any corollary obligation of the respondent-Corporation mandated by law to grant automatic extension of a contract, no Mandamus can issue to the respondent to consider the petitioners’ representations. The Writ Petition is therefore dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. GODA RAGHURAM, J Date: 18.03.2008 cvm