THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA W.P. No. 18622 of 2009 Oral order: Aggrieved by the action of respondent No.1 in terminating the contract of the petitioner and issuing fresh tender notification dated 24.07.2009 in respect of the cancelled contract, the petitioner filed the present writ petition. The petitioner being the highest bidder in pursuance of the tender notification dated 01.05.2008, was awarded Cycle/Scooter Stand contract by respondent No.1, for a period of three years commencing from 09.08.2008 to 08.08.2011, in respect of Eastern and Western sides of Guntur Railway Station. As per the terms and conditions of the contract, the petitioner paid some amounts, and was still liable to pay some amounts. However, on the ground that the petitioner despite several reminders failed to pay an amount of Rs.68,992/- for the West side and an amount of Rs. 4,26,204/- for the East side, for the period from 10.08.2008 to 09.08.2009, respondent No.1 issued the impugned orders dated 01.05.2009, terminating the contract granted in favour of the petitioner, and issued fresh tender notification. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. According to the own admission of the petitioner, he has not paid the amounts, as demanded by respondent No.1 in his various reminders, as indicated in the impugned orders of cancellation. Though the petitioner contends that he paid an amount of Rs.68,992/- for the West side and made part payment of Rs.1,75,000/- for the East side on 11.05.2009, and is willing to pay the entire amount for the ensuing year, the fact remains, he had not paid the entire amount as demanded by respondent No.1, but paid only part amount. As the petitioner failed to pay the amount, as demanded by respondent No.1 in his various reminders, respondent No.1 passed the impugned orders, canceling the contract. Though the petitioner contends that he could not pay the amounts, as demanded by respondent No.1 in his various reminders because of ill-health, and is willing to pay the entire amount for the ensuing year, the fact remains, it is a matter for respondent No.1 to consider, and this Court, in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, cannot interfere in disputes arising out of contractual obligations, and grant reliefs as prayed for by the petitioner, much less direct respondent No.1 not to enforce the impugned orders canceling the contract and not to proceed further in pursuance of the impugned fresh tender notification, for once the a contract is entered into between the parties, the parties to the contract, are bound by the terms and conditions of the contract, and the remedies available to the contracting parties in respect of disputes arising out of such contractual obligations, is to approach competent civil Court, and seek appropriate reliefs. For the foregoing reasons, there is no merit in the writ petition, and the same is accordingly dismissed. No costs. ________________ N.V. RAMANA, J. Dated: 7th September, 2009 Note: Issue CC tomorrow. (B/o) KSR