THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.17494 of 2009 DATED: 24.08.2009 Between: N.Mahendhar Reddy. … Petitioner. And The Government of Andhra Pradesh Rep. by Superintendent Sarojini Devi Eye Hospital Office of Humayun Nagar, Mehdipatnam, Hyderabad. .. Respondent. ORDER: In this writ petition, the petitioner has questioned the tender notice dated 13.08.2009 issued in R.C.No.339/HDS/SDEH/Canteen/2009, inviting bids to run canteen in the premises of the Sarojini Devi Eye Hospital, Hyderabad. The main grievance of the petitioner is that the respondent issued the impugned tender notice, without issuing him any notice of termination of his contract, which is still subsisting under the earlier notification dated 22.01.2007, as also without considering his representation dated 26.06.2009. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the period of contract of the petitioner was for two years commenced from August, 2007. He also submits that the petitioner has submitted a representation dated 26.06.2009 and the same is not considered. As regards the first contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner, no document is placed before this Court in support of his contention. With regard to the second contention of the learned counsel, a perusal of a copy of the said representation dated 26.06.2009, which finds place in the material papers filed along with the writ petition, would show that the same was submitted seeking review of the rates as per the existing market rates. Even assuming that such a request is not considered, that cannot be a ground to assail the validity of the impugned notice dated 13.08.2009. As much as there is no material placed before this Court to show that the petitioner’s contract period is still subsisting, I do not find any valid ground to interfere with the impugned tender notice. The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed. However, it is made clear that if the petitioner’s contract period is still subsisting, the impugned tender notice shall be given effect to only after expiry of the contract period of the petitioner. Subject to the above observation, the writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. ___________________ R.SUBHASH REDDY,J 24.08.2009 v v