THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.S.NARAYANA WRIT PETITION NO. 27435 OF 2007 DATED: 17-01-2008 BETWEEN: M/s. Nandi Travels, Rep.by its proprietor N. Rajasekhar Reddy S/o. Pulla Reddy, R/o. Plot No.D-5, Officer’s Colony, Dr.A.S.Rao Nagar, Hyderabad …Petitioner and 1. Electronics Corporation of India Ltd., rep.by its Managing Director, E.C.I.L.Post Office, Hyderabad and another … Respondents THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.S.NARAYANA WRIT PETITION NO.27435 OF 2007 ORDER: This court issued rule nisi on 24-12-2007. A counter affidavit and also a reply affidavit are filed along with material papers. 2. The writ petitioner, rep. by its proprietor filed the present writ petition seeking a writ of Mandamus to declare the action of the respondents in terminating the contract of the petitioner’s firm through its letter proceedings No.ECIL:CP:HTT:PT-79:06-07:375, dated 14-12- 2007 inspite of giving acceptance letter dated 14-12-2007 by the petitioner’s firm without giving prior notice as illegal and arbitrary and consequently direct the respondents corporation to extend the contract to the petitioner’s firm in pursuance of written acceptance letter dated 14-12-2007 submitted by the petitioner’s firm by setting aside the letter dated 14-12-2007 issued by the respondent corporation. 3. Heard Sri S. Lakshminarayana Reddy, learned counsel representing the writ petitioner and Sri D. Srinivas, learned standing counsel representing the respondents. 4. The learned counsel representing the writ petitioner Sri S.Lakshminarayana Reddy had taken this court through the contents of the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the stand taken in the counter affidavit and also the specific stand taken in the reply affidavit and would maintain that in the facts and circumstances of the case to say that there is no concluded contract cannot be sustained. The counsel had also pointed out to the relevant conditions which had been urged upon and would submit that having acted upon the contract and in the light of the material placed before this Court, since it is clear that even till today, the vehicles are being supplied by the writ petitioner, it is too much on the part of the respondent corporation to contend otherwise that there is no concluded contract or the contract had not been acted upon at all. The counsel had taken this court through several material papers placed before this court to show that even as on today, the vehicles are being supplied by the writ petitioner. 5. On the contrary, the learned counsel representing the respondents Sri D.Srinivas had taken this court through the contents of the counter affidavit filed before this court and would submit that in the facts and circumstances of the case the writ petition is not maintainable. 6. Heard the counsel and perused the records placed before this court. 7. The proprietor of the petitioner’s firm had sworn to the affidavit filed in support of the petition. It is stated that the firm had been supplying the taxies to the respondent corporation since 2000 onwards by way of contract through open tenders invited by the respondents corporation. While so, for the year 2006 contract, petitioner’s firm could not accept the respondents corporation contract as it has declared the tariff rates for supplying the cars was at very low and unreasonable and as such the contract had been awarded to M/s. Rishi Travels as their firm did not accept the contract for the respondents corporation due to revised tariff rates. In the month of September, 2007 the respondents corporation had informed them orally that they will award a contract for supplying of cars from their firm as the Rishi Travels who accepted for supplying the cars for the year 2006 had been withdrawn. They had sent their acceptance letter dated 12-09-2007 informing the respondents corporation that the contract may be awarded from October 2007 onwards for supplying cars to the respondents corporation. The respondents corporation in turn had addressed a letter to the petitioner through their letter dt. 20- 09-2007 informing them that they have agreed to award a contract to their firm and accordingly the respondents corporation had executed a letter and terms and conditions to award a contract to their firm from 01-10-2007 to 30-1-2007. Thereafter the respondents corporation had extended the contract for a period of 15 days i.e. from 01-12-2007 to 15-12-2007 with the same tariff rates and the same terms and conditions as agreed in their letter dated 20-09-2007 and accordingly their firm had been supplying the cars to the respondents corporation till date. Further it is stated that while so, the respondents corporation had issued a notification dated 24-08-2007 for awarding contract inviting open tenders. The petitioner’s sister concern namely M/s. Padmanandi Travels had submitted a tender to the respondents corporation in respect of contract in pursuance of notification dated 24-08-2007. The petitioner filed W.P.No.25391 of 2007 before this court challenging the arbitraryness of the respondents corporation in not considering its sister concern tender, and considering the other tenderers namely M/s. Gayathri Travels and M/s. Navya Teja Travels who participated in the tenders for the first time, though they are not eligible to participate in the tender, ignoring its sister concern firm namely M/s. Padmanandi Travels tender as they have violated condition No.23, 24 and 26 of terms and conditions of Notification dated 24-08-2007 issued by the respondents corporation. 8. On 29-11-2007 this court granted interim direction to the respondents corporation not to finalise the tenders in respect of tender notification dated 24-08-2007. Thereafter, the respondent corporation had extended its contract for a period of 15 days i.e. from 01-12-2007 to 15-12-2007. While so, the respondents corporation had sent a letter dated 12-12-2007 informing the petitioner that they have accepted contract further and arrange an acceptance letter immediately to that effect. In pursuance of the letter dated 12-12-2007 sent by the respondents corporation, the petitioner had sent their acceptance letter on 14-12-2007 informing their willingness to accept the respondents contract for further and prepare to supply the cars to the respondents corporation as per the terms and conditions annexure letter dated 20- 09-2007. On the same day, i.e. 14-12-2007 M/s. Vinayaka Travels also had given its acceptance letter to the respondents corporation expressing their willingness to supply the cars to the respondents corporation in pursuance of respondents letter dated 12-12-2007. It is submitted by the petitioner that they have submitted their acceptance letter on 14-12-2007 expressing their willingness to supply the cars to the respondents’ corporation in person by name Mr. Sudheer, S/o. Poullesu, who is their representative. It is also stated that though the petitioner had submitted acceptance letter dated 14-12-2007 through their representative to the respondents corporation, the respondents corporation had terminated the petitioner’s contract through their letter dated 14-12-2007 stating that the petitioner had failed to give an acceptance letter till date, as if the petitioner had not submitted their acceptance letter. Though the petitioner had submitted their acceptance letter through their representative on 14-12-2007 to the respondents corporation, ignoring the same the respondents corporation had sent the impugned letter terminating the petitioner’s contract though it is evidenced that M/s. Vinayaka Travels had also submitted its acceptance letter on the same day through its representative namely Mr.Parvathalu. The respondents corporation have not accepted and extended the contract, though both the petitioner and its sister concern had submitted their acceptance letters on the same day i.e. on 14-12-2007 through their respective representatives, which is illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the condition No.23.4 of contract agreement though till today they had been supplying their cars to the respondents corporation. The respondents corporation had terminated the petitioner’s contract through its letter dated 14-12-2007 is only as the petitioner had filed W.P.No.25391 of 2007 before this court challenging the arbitrariness of the respondents corporation in not considering their sister concern namely M/s Padmanandi Travels tender invited in pursuance of notification dated 24-07-2007. It is also stated that though the petitioner had been supplying cars to the respondents corporation since 2000 onwards and the respondents corporation itself had invited the petitioner for supplying of cars in pursuance of their letter dated 20-09-2007 and they had been extended the petitioner’s contract since 01-10-2007 till 15-12-2007 and on 14-12-2007 itself the petitioner has given its acceptance letter through its representative in pursuance of letter sent by the respondents corporation dated 12-12-2007. The respondents corporation had terminated the petitioners contract through its letter dated 14-12-2007 which had been received by the petitioner on 18-12- 2007 without giving any prior notice as contemplated under agreement No.23.4 of Contract Agreement annexed with the letter of the respondents corporation dated 20-09-2007. It is also further stated that though the petitioner had been supplying cars to the respondents corporation since 2000 onwards, there was no complaint from the respondents corporation till today in respect of service provided by cars and as such in view of termination of contract by the respondents corporation, the petitioner had deprived to have a contract to any other corporation as the petitioner was under bonafide impression that the respondents corporation will extend contract as the respondents corporation itself had admitted in its letter dated 12-12-2007 that the petitioner had orally accepted for further contract and as such question of terminating the petitioner’s contract on the ground that the petitioner had not given any written consent does not arise though the petitioner submitted acceptance letter dated 14-12-2007. Specific stand had been taken that the impugned action is arbitrary since no prior notice as contemplated under condition No.23.4 had been complied with. 9. In the counter affidavit filed by respondents sworn to by the Deputy General Manager (Corporate purchase) of the first respondent corporation, it is stated that earlier the respondent awarded the contract for supply of taxies to M/s. Rishi Travels, which was expired on 30-09-2007. The respondents published a tender dated 24-08-2007 calling for sealed tenders from the registered, reputed and experienced tourist taxi suppliers who are having service tax registration. Even though the petitioner herein did not submit any tender, but another firm by name M/s. Padmanandi Travels, a sister concern of the petitioner herein submitted its tender. When the said firm was disqualified for various reasons, the petitioner filed W.P.No. 25391 of 2007 before this court, in which this court heard the arguments and reserved for orders. Since the previous contract expired on 30-09-2007 and it may take some more time to finalise the new contract, the respondents initially offered to give the contract to the petitioner herein and another firm by name M/s. Sri Vinayaka Travels from 01-10-2007 to 30-11-2007 and after receiving their acceptance letters, the same was awarded to those two firms vide letter dated 20-09-2007. Again by letter dated 30- 11-2007 both the firms were directed to give their acceptance for extension of the said contract by another 15 days from 01-12-2007 to 15-12-2007. To this letter there was no response in writing from the petitioner, but the petitioner continued to send its taxies upto 15-12- 2007. M/s. Sri Vinayaka Travels, vide its letter dated 30-11-2007 accepted the same and vide letter dated 30-11-2007 the same was extended upto 15-12-2007. M/s. Sri Vinayaka Travels also deposited an amount of Rs.27,000/- towards Security Deposit and executed an agreement to this effect, which are required for granting the contract. But the petitioner did not deposit the said security amount nor given written consent nor executed the agreement inspite of reminders from the respondents. In this connection, finally by letter dated 14-12-2007, which was sent to the petitioner through speed post, it was informed that the respondents do not require the petitioner’s services from 16-12-2007. The respondents also contacted the petitioner on phone and informed that their services are not required from 16-12-2007 as they have not submitted the acceptance letter as required. After receiving the respondents phone call and the letter dated 14-12-2007, the petitioner sent a letter dated 14-12-2007 communicating their acceptance. The respondent denied the averment that the petitioner had sent its letter through a person by name Shri Ch. Sudheer on 14-12-2007 and further denied the allegation that the respondent had terminated the contract of the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner had filed W.P.No.25391 of 2007. As submitted above the offer made to the petitioner was only up to 15-12-2007 and there is no offer from the respondents to the petitioner for supply of taxies from 16-12-2007 onwards and hence the same was informed to the petitioner vide letter dated 14-12-2007. The offer made to the petitioner was only for a temporary period of 15 days and the same was also not accepted in writing by the petitioner nor deposited the security deposit and hence there is no binding contract between the petitioner and the respondents. When there is no offer from the respondents to supply taxies from 16-12-2007 onwards, the petitioner cannot compel the respondents to give an offer to it nor this court may entertain this writ petition. By the letter dated 14-12-2007 the respondents did not cancel any existing contract, but only informed the petitioner that their services are not required from 16- 12-2007 onwards. Hence no fundamental rights of the petitioner are violated by the respondents and the action of the respondents is valid and in accordance with law and hence there are no merits in this writ petition. It is further stated that only to mislead this court, the petitioner filed the letter dated 14-12-2007 in which the contract of M/s. Sri Vinayaka Travels was extended from 16-12-2007 to 31-12-2007. In this connection, it is stated that by letter dated 13-12-2007 the respondent made an offer to M/s. Sri Vinayaka Travels to extend the contract from 16-12-2007 to 31-12-2007, which was accepted by its letter dated 14- 12-2007. 10. A reply affidavit is filed wherein in para 2 it is stated that it is true that earlier M/s. Rishi Travels was awarded contract which was concluded by 30-09-2007 and it is also true that the respondent corporation had published a tender dated 24-08-2007 calling for sealed tenders to award the contract for the year 2007, and the sister concern firm of the petitioner’s firm by name M/s. Padmanandi Travels had submitted its sealed tender to the respondents, but it is incorrect that the said firm was disqualified for various reasons and the petitioner filed W.P.No.25391 of 2007 before this court. It is stated that M/s. Padmanandi Travels, who is sister concern of petitioner firm had submitted its tender to the respondents in pursuance of tender notice dated 24-08-2007, but the W.P.No.25391 of 2007 had been filed by the said firm in this court as the respondents corporation has arbitrarily selected the ineligible travel agencies i.e. M/s. Gayatri Travels and Navyateja Travels and ignored M/s. Padmanandi Travels though it is eligible and existing travel agency by violating the conditions of notice dated 24-08-2007 and as such the question of disqualifying the firm does not arise as alleged by the respondents in their counter affidavit. In reply to Para 3 of the counter affidavit, it is averred that the respondents had awarded contract to his firm as well as to M/s. Vinayaka Travels from 01-10-2007 onwards through their letter dated 20-09-2007 and accordingly, the petitioner had been supplying 15 taxies to the respondents corporation till today. It is further stated that it is relevant to state that while awarding contract to his firm through their letter dated 20-09-2007, the respondents had executed a contract agreement commencing the contract from 01-10-2007 onwards and they had also annexed the conditions of the contract wherein it is clearly stated under Clause No.17, the period of contract that this contract is valid for a period of two months w.e.f. 01-10-2007 to 30-11- 2007 and it may be considered for extension by mutual consent and the respondents had also made a condition 23.4 that both the parties to the contract shall have right to terminate the contract with three months notice and admittedly the respondents have extended the contract from 01-12-2007 to 15-12-2007 to his firm through their letter dated 30-11-2007 and as such, the question of no response in writing from them does not arise having extended the contract by their letter dated 30-11-2007 and more so, till today the respondents are availing their vehicles. It is also stated that while so, the respondents have addressed a letter dated 12-12-2007 to the petitioner informing that the petitioner had accepted orally for arranging vehicles for further period of contract and the petitioner was asked to send acceptance letter to that effect and that immediately on 14-12-2007 the petitioner sent acceptance letter through its representative by name Ch. Sudheer to the respondents and he had handed over the same to the respondents in person. It is further stated that the petitioner was under bonafide impression that the respondents have accepted its acceptance letter dated 14-12-2007, but surprisingly the respondents had sent the impugned letter dated 14-12-2007 terminating his contract which was received by him on 18-12-2007 as if he has not sent his acceptance letter. Further specific stand had been taken that the respondents had terminated his contract without giving any prior notice as stipulated under condition No.23 of Contract Agreement and without considering his acceptance letter dated 14-12-2007 and more so, they have extended contract to M/s. Vinayaka Travels which has also submitted its acceptance letter to the respondents on the same day, i.e. on 14-12- 2007 which is contrary to condition No.23. Further, in reply to para 3 of the counter affidavit, it is stated that the respondent had sent a letter on 12-12-2007 stating that the petitioner had orally accepted for further contract and asked him to send acceptance letter to that effect and immediately, the petitioner had sent his acceptance letter on 14-12- 2007 to the respondents and as such, the question of terminating his contract alleging that he has not send his acceptance letter does not arise as alleged by the respondents and more so, without giving any prior notice as stipulated under condition No.23. It is further stated that coming to the allegation that he has not deposited the security amount that on 01-12-2007 he has sent his representative to the respondents for release of bills an amount of Rs.3 lakhs payable by the respondents towards hire charges from 01-10-2007, but one Mr. Appa Rao who is an employee of respondents corporation in the account section has informed to his representative that they will release the hire charges amount after deducting the amount of Rs.27,000/- towards security deposit in respect of awarded contract and the same was confirmed by him through telephone and the respondents have also released an amount of Rs.24,367/- to him under voucher No.38534 dated 06-12-2007 and the respondents are yet to pay the balance amount to him and as such the allegation that he has not deposited the security deposit does not arise and it is invented by the respondents only to terminate the contract to his firm having using his vehicles till today. It is also further averred that it is relevant to state that while awarding contract to his firm, i.e. from 01-10-2007 the respondents have incorporated the condition in the Contract Agreement that both the parties shall have to give three months prior notice to conclude the contract anticipating that his firm will conclude the contract after two months of contract and now the respondents cannot conclude the contract violating said condition having made it for their convenience. It is further stated that through he has been supplying the taxies to the respondents since 2000 onwards and the respondents corporation itself has invited his firm and awarded contract from 01-10-2007 and now they cannot terminate his contract without giving any prior notice as stipulated under condition No.23 of the Contract Agreement. It is further stated that the respondents wants to harass him in not releasing the petitioner’s payment of hire charges and now they have chosen to eliminate the petitioner’s firm from the contract having utilized the petitioner’s service even till today. 11. These are the respective stands taken by the parties. It is true that normally, in matters of this nature, concerned with awarding of contracts, the writ court to be slow in interfering with such decisions. Condition No.23.4 specifies that both parties to the contract shall have right to terminate the contract with three months notice. The main grievance of the writ petitioner ventilated both in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition and also in reply affidavit is that this condition had not been complied with. The correspondence letters and the proceedings had been placed before this Court, to satisfy this court relating to the supply of vehicles even as on today by the petitioner. It is no doubt true that specific stand had been taken in the counter affidavit denying the same. It is no doubt true that here is a case where the petitioner is complaining that there is a breach of contract or violation of terms of contract. In the light of the limitations imposed on this court in interfering with such contractual matters, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioner is entitled to the appropriate reliefs by invoking the appropriate remedy before a competent civil court for breach of contract, if any, if the petitioner is so advised. Except making this observation, no positive relief can be granted. 12. With the above observation, writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. __________________ P.S.NARAYANA, J. Dated:17-01-2008 rns