IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION NO : 3466 of 2009 Between: M/s.Sri Pydimamba Enterprieses, rep.by its Proprietor K.Setty Babu, S/o.Late Venakta Ramanaiah R/o.Shop.No5, 1st floor, Sri Ganga Krishna Sai Complex, Near City Bus stand,. Vizianagaram ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep.by its Principal Secretary, (SE.PRog.I) Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad 2 The Joint Collector & Chairman, District level Committee, Visakhapatnam 3 The Proprietor ,Metalika Industries, C/o.The Joint Collector, & Chairman,District Level Committee Visakhapatnam 4 The Managing Director, National Cooperative Consumer Federation of India., Visakhapatnam C/o.The Joint Collector &Chairman District Level Committee, Visakhapatnam 5 The Managing Director, Kendriya Bhandar, Visakhapatnam C/o. The Joint Collector, & Chairman,District Level Committee, Visakhapatnam ...RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue a writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the proceedings of the 2nd respondent in Lr.Rc.No.6354/A2/2007 dated 28.11.2008 as is illegal, arbitrary, and to set aside the consequential order of the 2nd respondent in LR.Rc.No.6354/A2/2007 dated 5.2.2009 and direct the 2nd respondent to extent the time for work order to enable the petitioner to supply the tendered quantities of the material and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.P.SRI RAGHU RAM Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR EDUCATION The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI WRIT PETITION No.3466 of 2009 ORDER: The 2nd respondent-Joint Collector-cum-Chairman, District Level Committee, Visakhapatnam issued Tender Notice dated 15.2.2008 inviting sealed tenders for supply of gas stoves, kitchen devices and etc for implementation of Mid Day Meal Scheme in terms of the guidelines formulated under G.O.Rt.No.1083 dated 14.12.2007. In response to the said tender notice, 11 applications were received and the price offered by the writ petitioner being the lowest, the work order was issued to him on 3.2.2008. As per the work order, the petitioner was required to supply the material to the Mandal Points of the districts on or before 25.3.2008. However, the petitioner failed to supply the material before 25.3.2008 on the ground that the samples supplied by him were not certified by the 2nd respondent till June 2008. In the circumstances, on a request made by the petitioner, the time was extended from time to time and ultimately, by letter dated 18.9.2008 the petitioner had agreed to make the supplies of the Gas Stoves and Aluminum Vessels on the following dates:- Number of Gas Stoves Number of Aluminum Vessels Proposed Date of Supply 800 800 28.09.2008 900 800 08.10.2008 900 800 18.10.2008 242 1002 25.10.2008 It was also stated by him in the said letter that if the supplies are not made on the above dates, the work order may be cancelled. Since the petitioner committed default to make the supplies on the dates agreed in his letter dated 18.9.2008, by order dated 28.11.2008, the purchase order in favour of the petitioner was cancelled and the EMD amount was forfeited proportionately for the items not supplied. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition is filed contending inter alia that the impugned order of the respondents in cancelling the supply order without issuing prior notice, is arbitrary, illegal and in violation of the principles of natural justice. Having heard the learned counsel for both parties in detail and having perused the material available on record, I do not find substance in any of the contentions raised by the petitioner. As could be seen from the record, the petitioner had asked for extension of time repeatedly on various grounds and the same was acceded to by the respondents. The letter dated 18.9.2008 placed before this Court shows that the petitioner himself has undertaken to make the supplies within the dates specified there under. However, he could not abide by the same and again committed default. Though it is contended by the petitioner that the said letter was obtained under duress, the same was denied by the respondents. Such a disputed question of fact cannot be enquired into by this Court in exercise of writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. At any rate the dispute between the parties which arose out of a concluded contract, the terms and conditions of which are not governed by any statue can not be dealt with under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Hence the relief as prayed for cannot be granted by this Court. However, this shall not preclude the petitioner to work out the appropriate common law remedy available under law for redressal of his grievance if any. Accordingly, granting leave and liberty to the petitioner, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs. _______________ Justice G. Rohini Date:29.06.2009. mrb