THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH WRIT PETITION No :2945 of 2008 DATED:14-02-2008 BETWEEN: K.Poornamma & 8 others. ..... PETITIONERS AND The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep., by its Principal Secretary, Health, Medical and Family Welfare (M1) Department, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad & 2 others. .....RESPONDENTS ORDER: Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioners as well as the learned Government Pleader for Medical, Health & Family Welfare appearing for the respondents. 2. Petitioners seek a writ of mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in not continuing the petitioners as Diet Suppliers to inpatients in the hospitals owned and managed by the Andhra Pradesh Vaidya Vidhan Parishad upto 31-03-2009, as illegal, arbitrary, and contrary to the circular bearing No.25842/M1/2005-1, dated 17-12- 2005, and consequently direct the respondents not to disturb the petitioners as diet supply contractors unless they are found to be unsatisfactory. 3. It is stated that the petitioners are the Diet Suppliers to various hospitals under the control of A.P.Vaidhya Vidhan Parishad and on their representation the Government exercised its executive powers and accordingly issued an executive fiat vide G.O.Ms.No.32, Health, Medical and Family Welfare (M1) Department, dated 02-02-2005. It is stated that as per the said G.O., the Government has decided to give a minimum period of three years to the Diet Canteen Contractors in respect of the supply of diet to the inpatients and duty doctors of all Government hospitals with a proviso that if the performance is found unsatisfactory, termination can be made with immediate effect. It is stated that all the petitioners have been supplying the diet without any deficiencies and to that effect various hospitals also issued certificates stating that their performance is satisfactory. It is stated that pursuant to the aforesaid letter of the Government, the contract period due to be expired by 31-03-2005 was extended for the year, 2006-07 and 2007-08 i.e., from 01-04-2007 to 31-03-2008. 4. Sri P.Venugopal, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, submits that as per the aforesaid G.O., the Government has decided to give a minimum period of three years to the Diet Canteen Contractors, and therefore the Diet Canteen Contractors supplying diet to the Government hospitals have got three clear years. The usual contract was due to be expired by 31-03-2005, but their contracts have been extended for three years at a time each one year i.e., from 01-04-2005 to 31-03-2006; 01-04-2006 to 31-03-2007; and 01-04-2007 to 31-03- 2008. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that as the benefit of the said G.O. was extended to the contractors supplying diet to the hospitals under the control of the Commissioner of A.P.Vaidhya Vidhan Parishad the petitioners are also entitled for three years period as during the subsistence of the contract period the said letter, dated 17-12-2005, has been issued and after expiry of the contract on 31-03- 2006 they are entitled to three more years i.e., upto 31-03-2009. I am unable to accept the said contention for the reason that by the said letter the benefit of the Government Order was ordered to be implemented in respect of the Diet Contractors supplying diet to the Government hospitals under the control of the A.P.Vaidhya Vidhan Parishad. The Government Order is clear and specific for extension of three years period alone. As the said G.O. was issued in the month of February, three years will be obviously commencing from 01-04-2005 and ending with 31-03-2008. Therefore, any letter extending the Government Order will be for the period co-existing with the said G.O., and there is no dispute with regard to the supply of diet by the Diet Contractors to the Government hospitals and the three years period ends by 31-03-2008. Therefore, petitioners to whom the benefit of the said G.O. has been extended are not entitled for any benefit of the said G.O. after 31-03-2008. Though the said letter has been issued on 17-12-2005 they have got only three months period for the year, commencing from 01- 04-2005 to 31-03-2006 and two more clear years for the subsequent years, the three months has to be treated as first year. 6. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, I do not see any illegality on the part of the respondents in calling for the tenders for the next year commencing from 01-04-2008 onwards. 7. Accordingly, Writ Petition is dismissed. There shall be no as to costs. _________________ V.ESWARAIAH,J 14th February, 2008. Note: Furnish C.C. of the order within three days. B/o Tsy