IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE THIRTY FIRST DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 6892 of 2008 Between: Siri Travels Contractors, Door No.46/215,Budawarapeta,Kurnool, rep by its Partner Y.Subramanyam, S/o.Narayana, aged about 65 years, R/o.Flat No.302, Teja Apartments, Lipson Colony,Kurnool. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Chief Engineer, A.P.Transco Vidyut Soudha,Hyderabad. 2 The Chief Engineer, T.L. & S.S.Circle, A.P.Transco,Kadapa. 3 The Superintendent Enigneer, T.L. & S.S.Circle,A.P.Transco,Kurnool. .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.K.V.RAGHUVEER Counsel for the Respondents:MR.O.MANOHAR REDDY(SC FOR APTRANSCO) The Court made the following: ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a writ of mandamus to declare the action of respondent No.3 in calling for tenders without renewing the petitioner’s contract in accordance with the terms and conditions of L.S.Agreement No.61/2007-08, dated 01.09.2007 as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner sought for a consequential direction to respondent No.3 not to finalise the new tenders. In pursuance of a notification calling for tenders for supply of Diesel Ambassador Vehicle (Non A/C), the petitioner submitted it’s tender. It’s tender was accepted and L.S.Agreement No.61/2007-08 was entered into. The period of contract was from 01.05.2007 to 31.03.2008. In accordance with the agreement, the petitioner supplied it’s vehicle and on the eve of expiry of the contract period, respondent No.3 issued proceedings, dated 28.02.2008 whereby he called for fresh tenders fixing 07.03.2008 as last date for receipt of the sealed tenders. The petitioner claimed that it purchased the tender form by paying requisite fee, but, however, it did not submit the same. Feeling aggrieved by the proposal of respondent No.3 to entrust the contract from 01.04.2008 through a fresh tender process, the petitioner filed this writ petition. I have heard Sri K.V.Raghuveer, learned counsel for the petitioner. The above-mentioned facts and a perusal of the record reveal that the petitioner’s contract is expiring today i.e. 31.03.2008. The learned counsel for the petitioner, however, submitted that condition No.1 of the terms and conditions of L.S.Agreement envisages renewal of contract for a further period of two years. He, therefore, submitted that calling for tenders without renewing the contract in favour of the petitioner is contrary to the terms and conditions of the agreement and arbitrary. I have carefully considered the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner and the documents filed by the petitioner. Page 13 of the material papers filed by the petitioner contains “L.S.AGREEMENT No.61/2007-08” and clause 4 of the said document reads as under: “Time shall be considered as the essence of the agreement and the contractor hereby agree to commence the work as soon as this agreement is accepted by competent authority as defined by the A.P. Public Works Department code and the site (or premises) is handed over to him as provided for in the said conditions and agree to complete the work within for the period from 01.05.2007 to 31.03.2008 or till the departmental arrangement is made whichever is earlier.” The said document was signed by the petitioner and respondent No.3. The petitioner, however, filed another document, namely, ‘TERMS AND CONDITIONS’ at page 17, which is also purported to be the agreement and clause (1) of the same reads as under: “1. PERIOD OF CONTRACT: From 01.05.2007 to 31.03.2008 and renewable for further two years.” Clauses 12 and 13 of the said document are to the following effect: “12. The period of this present agreement is from 01.05.2007 to 31.03.2008. 13. The contract can be terminated by giving one week notice by either party.” Though it is not known as to why there are two different sets of L.S.Agreements in respect of the same contract, terms of both the documents are almost identical except that in the latter mentioned document, the words ‘renewable for further two years’ are incorporated. But as already referred to and reproduced hereinabove, clause 12 of the said document stipulates the agreement period from 01.05.2007 to 31.03.2008. Even assuming that the agreement between the petitioner and respondent No.3 envisages renewal of the contract for a further period of two years, in my considered view, the said clause does not provide for an automatic renewal of the contract. In the absence of any specific provision in this regard, the said clause is required to be construed as providing for renewal subject to the agreement by both parties. This view of mine is fortified by clause 13 of the latter document, under which, either party to the contract is given power to terminate the contract by giving a week’s notice. I am, therefore, not in agreement with the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that since the petitioner is entitled to renewal of the contract for a further period of two years, respondent No.3 cannot call for fresh tenders. At any rate, the dispute arises under a commercial contract, pure and simple. Ordinarily, this Court would not entertain a writ petition, which is a public law remedy, to decide the disputes arising under such a commercial contract. If the petitioner asserts its rights under the agreement, it shall always be at liberty to approach the common law Courts for appropriate relief. Subject to the above observations, the writ petition is dismissed. As a sequel to dismissal of main petition, WPMP.No.9010 of 2008 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is also dismissed. C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 31st MARCH, 2008 kvni