IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD Dated: 15.12.2011 PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR WRIT PETITION No.32601 OF 2011 Between: M/s. I.M. Travels & Transport Company ….. PETITIONER AND The Chairman & Managing Director and another ....RESPONDENTS The Court made the following: THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR WRIT PETITION No.32601 OF 2011 ORDER: Petitioner was granted contract for supply of multi utility vehicle as per tender notice dated 22.07.2008. A formal contract was, therefore, entered into in favour of the petitioner. Petitioner was given a work order dated 29.08.2008 for hiring multi utility A.C. vehicle on 24 hours basis for an aggregate period of five years. The petitioner has worked under the said contract till it received notice from the respondents, dated 26.10.2010, informing the petitioner that in terms of Clause 16 of the terms and conditions, Singareni Collieries Company Limited (SCCL) desires to cancel the allotted tender work with one month notice and that after 01.12.2010, the contract work shall automatically stand cancelled. Petitioner filed representations to the respondents requesting for reconsideration of the said proceedings. The copies of the said representations filed by the petitioner, dated 04.11.2010 and 12.11.2010, are annexed to the Writ Petition. The respondents, however, declined to consider petitioner’s request. Hence, this Writ Petition. Notice was given to the respondents’ counsel, who has taken instructions and submits that since 01.12.2010 the petitioner has not been working; that the petitioner was informed well in advance in October, 2010 itself that the SCCL desires to invoke powers under Clause 16; and therefore, hardly any cause of action survives for consideration in this Writ Petition. Clause 16 of the terms and conditions of the contract under which the impugned proceedings of cancellation was passed is as follows: “16. SCCL receives the right to cancel the allotted tender work during the contract period at any time without assigning any reason with one month notice. If the contractor/firm wants to withdraw, he should give 90 days notice and EMD shall be forfeited.” It is evident from the above that the respondents SCCL has a right to cancel the allotted tender during the contract period without assigning any reason but with one month’s notice. That part of the condition has been complied with as the petitioner was informed well in advance in October, 2010 that the contract shall stand automatically cancelled from 01.12.2010. Since the petitioner, in any case, is not working for the last one year and has filed the Writ Petition at this distance of time questioning the advance notice, the issuance of advance notice dated 26.10.2010 cannot be said to be either arbitrary or illegal but on the contrary it is in accordance with the powers reserved by the respondents SCCL under Clause 16 of the terms and conditions. If the petitioner feels that invocation of the said power and cancellation of the contract is illegal and unjustified, the only remedy for the petitioner is to seek damages by approaching competent Civil Court. The mandamus sought for, therefore, cannot be granted and is thus declined. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ____________________________ VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J December 15, 2011 MD THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR WRIT PETITION No.32601 OF 2011 December 15, 2011 MD