THE HON'BLE Ms. JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION No. 22086 OF 2010 Dated: 03.09.2010 Between: K.R.Vijay Kumar ..... PETITIONER AND The Commissioner, A.P. Vaidya Vidhan Parishad, Hyderabad and another .....RESPONDENTS The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION No. 22086 OF 2010 ORDER: This writ petition is filed seeking a declaration that the order passed by the 2nd respondent dated 15.03.2010, whereunder the petitioner’s request for extension of contract for supply of diet to the inpatients and duty doctors in District Hospital, Karimnagar was rejected, is arbitrary and illegal. Heard the learned counsel for both the parties. The material placed before this Court shows that by proceedings of the 1st respondent dated 25.04.2009 the petitioner was permitted to continue as diet contractor of the hospital in question for one year from 01.04.2009 to 31.03.2010. On 11.03.2010 the petitioner made an application for extension of the period of contract and the same was rejected under the impugned order. The only contention advanced on behalf of the petitioner is that in terms of G.O.Ms.No.32, Health, Medical and Family Welfare (M1) Department, dated 02.02.2005, the respondents are bound to continue the petitioner for a minimum period of three years and therefore, the extension as sought by the petitioner ought not to have been rejected. The learned counsel for the 1st respondent on instructions stated that the petitioner is being continued as diet contractor for the past 14 years without inviting any tenders. The petitioner could not dispute the same and nothing could be placed before this Court that the petitioner was granted the contract by inviting the tenders. As could be seen from the impugned order dated 15.03.2010, it has been decided by the Hospital Development Society for inviting fresh tenders for grant of contract for supply of diet to the inpatients and the duty doctors of the hospital in question. Having regard to the admitted fact that the petitioner was not awarded the contract in question following the tender process, I am of the opinion that he is not entitled to the benefit of extension under G.O.Ms.No.32, dated 02.02.2005. Therefore, the impugned order dated 15.03.2010 cannot be held to be arbitrary or illegal. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. However, this shall not preclude the petitioner to participate in the tender process, if so advised. No costs. ___________ G. ROHINI, J Date: 03.09.2010 Ivd