IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA WRIT PETITION NO : 7763 of 2009 Between: Mangalagiri Krishna S/o. Guravaiah R/o. 25-22-45, 1st Lane, Konda Venkatappaiah Colony, Ward No.11, Guntur, Guntur District. ..... PETITIONER AND Guntur Municipal Corporation, rep. by its Commissioner, 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 any writ, order or direction more particularly a writ in the nature of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondent in refusing to consider the petitioner's representation dt. 28.02.2009 for continuation of contract under physicallly handicapped quota for AMC Toilets adjacent to Railway Station, Guntur as illegal and arbitrary and consequently set aside the notification Rc.No.349/2009/A2, dt. 8.4.2009 in regard to Item No.10 and direct the respondent to allow the petitioner to continue contract work on enhancement of annual lease rent in the interest of justice. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.M.JANARDHAN RAO Counsel for the Respondent No.: (SC FOR GMC)B.VENKATA RATNAM The Court made the following : ORDER: This writ petition is filed questioning the action of the respondent – Guntur Municipal Corporation in refusing to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 28.2.2009 for continuation of the contract under physically handicapped quota for AMC toilets adjacent to Railway Station, Guntur. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned standing counsel for the respondent Municipality. It is the case of the petitioner that he belongs to Relli community and the respondent vide proceedings dated 31.3.2003 granted annual maintenance contract from April 2003 to March 2004 under physically handicapped quota and the said contract renewed from time to time upto March 2008. While so, vide notification dated 15.3.2008 the respondent has called for tenders for different works including the AMC for the item for which the petitioner was granted contract earlier and which came to an end by March, 2008. Therefore, he made a representation to the respondent authorities on 17.3.2008 explaining his hardship and sought to continue the contract in his favour. The grievance of the petitioner is that even though the respondent received his representation, so far no orders are passed on the same. Admittedly, the contract of the petitioner with the respondent municipality came to an end by March, 2008 and thereafter the lease was not extended. Even according to the petitioner, the respondent has already issued a notification for the item for which the petitioner is seeking renewal of contract. That apart, the petitioner has not shown before this court any legal right which enables him to seek for extension of the lease period. In that view of the matter, the relief sought for by the petitioner in this writ petition cannot be granted. Accordingly the writ petition is dismissed. N.V.RAMANA,J DT.17.4.2009 msv