IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER, TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION Nos.11116 & 792 of 2011 W.P.No.11116 of 2011 Between: Rajiv Yuvajana Sangam, Kadapa … Petitioner And The Regional Manager, APSRTC, Ananthapur & others. … Respondents Counsel for the petitioner: Sri G. Arun Kumar for Sri M.A.K. Mukeed Counsel for the respondents: Smt. W.V.S. Rajeswari This Court made the following: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION Nos.11116 & 792 of 2011 COMMON ORDER:- These two Writ Petitions are filed questioning the fresh tender notifications issued by the A.P. State Road Transport Corporation inviting tenders for cleaning and sweeping of toilets and bus stand premises. The main basis on which these Writ Petitions are filed is that in the tender conditions, the period of contract is two years and the same is extendable to a maximum period of four years based on the satisfactory performance. It is the pleaded case of the petitioners that as their performance is satisfactory, the action of the respondents in inviting fresh tenders on the expiry of two years period is illegal. Counter affidavits have been filed on behalf of the respondents, wherein it is inter alia stated that the agreements stipulated the period of contract as two years only without any provision for extension. It is also stated that the performance of the petitioners is not satisfactory, as several complaints were received on the unhygienic conditions prevailing in the respective bus stations in respect of which they were awarded the contracts. In my opinion, the disputes raised by the petitioners fell in the realm of concluded contracts. Therefore, ordinarily, this Court would not interfere with such disputes while exercising its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Even though the tender conditions contain a clause that the period of contract is two years and that the same is extendable up to a period of four years based on the satisfactory performance, concededly, no such clause is incorporated in the agreements. Whether the tender conditions got incorporated in the contract or not and if so, whether the performance of the petitioners was satisfactory entitling them for extension of contract period are the questions, which need to be adjudicated by a competent civil Court. Therefore, without expressing any opinion on these issues, these Writ Petitions are dismissed with liberty to the petitioners to approach the competent civil Court for appropriate relief. As a sequel, interim orders granted in these Writ Petitions are vacated, WPMP.No.13634 of 2011 in W.P.No.11116 of 2011 and WPMP.No.975 of 2011 in W.P.No.792 of 2011 are dismissed and WVMP.No.2935 of 2011 in W.P.No.11116 of 2011 is disposed of. ____________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Date: 18.11.2011 ES