THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.1468 of 2011 ORDER: The Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation (for short ‘the Corporation’) issued a tender notice, dated 17.07.2009, inviting tenders for the work of laying of road between Dargah Junction to O.U. Colony at Serilingampally (South) under Engineering Procurement and Construction System (E.P.C.). The value of the work is Rs.1001.94 lakhs. The petitioner submitted its tender proposing to execute the work at the cost of Rs.794 lakhs. He was declared as the lowest tenderer and an agreement was entered into on 10.03.2010. On the ground that the petitioner did not execute the work according to the schedule, the Corporation terminated the contract through proceedings, dated 04.11.2010, and invited fresh tenders. The petitioner feels aggrieved by the proceedings, dated 04.11.2010. The petitioner contends that though an agreement was entered into on 10.03.2010, it was communicated to it on 19.04.2010 and thereafter, the site was not handed over as provided for under the agreement. It is urged that the petitioner executed the work to a tune of Rs.20 lakhs wherever it was possible and the balance of the work could not be undertaken on account of non-cooperation of the Corporation. On behalf of the respondents, a detailed counter-affidavit is filed. It is stated that the petitioner did not commence the work for quite some time and except that the material was dumped here and there, no work worth its name was executed. They further submit that the petitioner did not even submit the designs till July, 2010, though it was part of its obligation to get the approval of designs much in advance. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents. The contract was assigned to the petitioner on its emerging as the lowest tenderer. The time for execution of the work was fixed as one year. It is under E.P.C. System, which obligates the petitioner to submit the designs and get them approved. The petitioner ought to have maintained the schedule for early completion of the work. There are several disputed questions such as whether the petitioner submitted the designs as required under the contract and whether it submitted revised designs after those submitted by it were rejected. Since the work is time bound, and the road was proposed to provide amenities to the local population, the belated execution has its own impact. It was alleged that one of the culverts constructed by the petitioner collapsed. In the impugned proceedings, dated 04.11.2010, it was mentioned that as many as nine notices were issued to the petitioner requiring it to adhere to the schedule. Under these circumstances, it cannot be said that there was no justification for the respondents in terminating the contract. This Court is not inclined to interfere with the impugned order. Hence, the writ petition is dismissed. It is, however, made clear that in case the petitioner has executed any part of the work and it is otherwise entitled in law to claim the amount for it, it shall be open to it to make claim and pursue it in accordance with law. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY,J Dt:21.03.2011. Note: Issue cc in three days. (B/o) kdl