IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 10494 of 2008 Between: Concierge Security Services,. Rep. by its Prop. Squadren Leader Jagdish Singh (Retd) R/o. D.No. 50-93-8/3, Santhipuram , Akkayyapalem, Visakhapatnam-530 016 ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Union of India, Rep. by its Secretary, Ministry of Road, Transport & Highways, Central Secretariat Buildings, New Delhi. 2 National Highway Authority of ndia, Rep . by its Project Director (Ministry of Shopping Road, Transport & Highways) PIU (GQ) NHAI Enclave, Km 2/8 NH 5, Hanumantawaka, Visakhapatnam, A.P. 3 Directorate General of Resettlement, Milnistry of Defence, West Block-4, R.K. Puram, New Delhi-110 066 .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court may be pleased to to issue any appropriate writ order or direction preferably one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents 1 & 2 in not renewing the contract of the petitioner dt.1- 11-2007 for carrying on the activity in terms of Clause 5 of the Contract as well as the non-consideration of the representation of the petitioner by passing suitable orders as illegal,. Arbitrary, violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents not to terminate the contract dt.1-11-2007 for supply of Manpower for Departmental collection of User Fee at Nathavalasa Toll Plaza for the Completed four lane stretch of NH 5 from KM 654.204-Km. 700.544 of Champavathi-VSP Section for execution of the work. Counsel for the Petitioner: MRS.N.SURYA KUMARI Counsel for the Respondent No.: MR.A.RAJASHEKAR REDDY (ASST SOLICITOR GEN) The Court made the following : ORDER: This writ petition has been filed by Concierge Security Services rep. by its Prop: Squadren Leader Jagdish Singh (Retd.) assailing the action of the respondents 1 and 2 in not renewing the contract dated 01.11.2007 for carrying on the activity in terms of Clause 5 of the Contract. 2. Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent submits that the work is being entrusted to the petitioner and therefore, no question of renewing the contract arises. 3. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the work is being entrusted to the petitioner without fixing the time for completion of work and therefore, a direction is required to be given to the 2nd respondent to fix the time. 4. Extension of time is a matter between the petitioner and the 2nd respondent, which is required to be resolved by way of mutual understanding. Since work is being entrusted to the petitioner by the 2nd respondent, nothing survives in this writ petition. 5. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed as infructuous at the admission stage. No costs. ______________________ B.SESHASAYANA REDDY, J. Date:10th July, 2008. cs ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{VSMI}