IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE NINTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 7731 of 2008 Between: N.V.Ramana Murthy S/o.Mallikarjuna Rao R/o.Plot No.31, Allied Housing Society, Mayuri Junction, Vizianagaram. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 M/s. Eastern Power Distribution Company of A.P. Ltd., Operation Circle, Vizianagaram rep. by The Superintending Engineer. 2 M/s. Eastern Power Distribution Company of A.P. Ltd., Rep. by The Assistant Accounts Officer, Rural, Vizianagaram. .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.BALAJI MEDAMALLI Counsel for the Respondents: O.MANOHAR REDDY(SC FOR APTRANSCO) The Court made the following : ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a writ of mandamus to set aside proceedings, dated 31.03.2008 of respondent No.1 whereby agreement, dated 21.11.2007 was purported to have been terminated. The petitioner claimed to have been rendering services as Accounting Agent since 1987 either with the predecessors of respondent No.1 or with respondent No.1 and that the latest agreement entered into by the petitioner with respondent No.1 is dated 21.11.2007. The grievance of the petitioner is that on certain allegations, the said agreement has been terminated by the Superintending Engineer of respondent No.1 through the impugned proceedings. I have heard Sri M.Balaji, learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record. Clause 32 of agreement dated 21.11.2007 stipulated the period of agreement as between 01.04.2007 and 31.03.2008. In the face of this clause, the agreement under which the petitioner is claiming his rights to serve as Accounting Agent of respondent No.1 company ceased to be in force with effect from 01.04.2008 and in my considered view, the purported termination made by the impugned proceedings is wholly misconceived. The learned counsel for the petitioner, however, submitted that though the agreement is stated to be for the period up to 31.03.2008, the respondents have been continuing the petitioner’s services. In the context of the dispute raised by the petitioner, the informal extension of agreement period by the respondents has no relevance and this Court will not take judicial notice of such acts on the part of the respondents. With the coming to an end of the duration of the agreement from 01.04.2008, the petitioner cannot claim to have any enforceable right to maintain this writ petition. On this premise, the writ petition is dismissed. As a sequel to dismissal of main petition, WPMP.No.10159 of 2008 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 9th APRIL, 2008 kvni