HON’BLE Mr. JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.7167 of 2004 Order: The Northern Power Distribution Company Ltd., through its Superintending Engineer, Karimnagar, entered into an agreement dated 17-06-2002 with the petitioner, Karimnagar District Chamber of Commerce and Trade, a company registered under the Companies Act, 1956, for collection of current consumption charges of bi-monthly billing services in respect of certain E.R.Os and remittance of amount to the bank on the same day and to send the P.C.Bs with originals to the Assistant Accounts Officer/Electricity Revenue Office, Peddapally. 2. By the impugned letter No.AAO/ERO/TOWN/KNR/ESTT/D.No.30 dated 08-04-2004, respondents have instructed the petitioner to close down all collection centres from 09-04-2004 on the ground that e-seva centres have started functioning. 3. The only argument advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that as per clause 35 of the agreement, unless the respondents issue one month notice in advance, they have no power to cancel the agreement. 4. In this case, agreement dated 17-06-2002 was entered by the second respondent with the petitioner for collection of current consumption charges only for a period of one year. Clause 35 of the agreement reads as under: “ The period of Agreement is one year and will continue to be in force until further orders. However, the N.P.D.C.L. is entitled to terminate this Agreement by giving one month notice without assigning any reason. The Agreement shall be renewed by mutual consent in writing from time to time, the conditions of this Agreement shall continue to be in force.” 5. A cumulative reading of the aforesaid clause in the agreement indicates that the period of agreement is only for one year and the power to terminate the agreement by giving one month notice is applicable in case the agreement is terminated within the period. As much as the agreement entered by the second respondent with the petitioner is only for a period of one year, the petitioner has no right to continue as an agent beyond the said period. Moreover, the agency given to the petitioner is pursuant to an agreement purely in the nature of a contract, the term of which had expired. In that view of the matter, I do not find any illegality in the action of the respondents in instructing the petitioner to close down the collection centers, by way of the impugned letter, so as to interfere with the same in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 6. The writ petition is devoid of merits and is accordingly dismissed, in the circumstances, with no order as to costs. __________________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J. June 24, 2009 MRR