THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH WRIT PETITION No.11185 of 2010 ORDER: This writ petition is filed seeking to issue a writ of Mandamus declaring the tender notice vide IFB No.NIT No.03/DB/SE/R&B/VZM/ 2010-2011, dated 24.04.2010, in relation to the improvement of Elwinpet-Ramannaguda Raod to Eguva Takikonda from km 3/0 to 6/180 in Vizianagaram District (balance work) as illegal and arbitrary. The petitioner was entrusted the work of improvement of Elwinpet-Ramannaguda road to Eguva Tadikonda from km 3/0 to 6/180 in Vizianagaram District, on 21.10.2008, with estimated amount of Rs.82,17,364/-, as per agreement No.26/08-09. As per the said agreement entered into between the petitioner and the respondents, the petitioner has to complete the work within six months, but not nine months, as alleged by him in the affidavit, filed in support of the writ petition. Admittedly, the work was not completed by the petitioner before six months i.e., by 20.04.2009 and therefore, the second respondent-Executive Engineer extended the period of contract up to 20.07.2009 i.e., for three more months, as requested by the petitioner vide his letter, dated 16.04.2009. According to the petitioner, he has completed 90% of the work within the extended period. But, according to the respondents, only 17.23% of the work was completed. In the notice, dated 29.03.2010, it is stated that the value of the work so far completed by the petitioner is only Rs.14,15,626/- as against the contract value of Rs.82,17,364/- and that in spite of issuing various notices, the petitioner failed to complete the work. However, while extending the time up to 31.03.2010, and as the work was not resumed in spite of issuing of notices, dated 01.12.2009 and 15.03.2010, the second respondent issued final notice vide Lr.No.CR.26/A2/2008-09, dated 29.03.2010, and consequently, the tender notification vide IFB No. NIT No.03/DB/SE/R&B/VZM/ 2010-2011, dated 24.04.2010, was issued for the execution of the balance work and estimated value of the contract is Rs.49,63,195/-, to be completed within three months. The petitioner questions the said tender notification in the present writ petition. Without questioning the final notice, dated 29.03.2010, issued by the second respondent, terminating the contract under clause 60(a) of PS to APSS duly forfeiting the EMD, FSD, value of work done but not paid for etc, to the Government, the petitioner has challenged the tender notice, dated 24.04.2010, issued in respect of completion of the balance work. The contractual matters are within the realm of the contract between the parties. More so, when the averment made by the petitioner with regard to the quantum of the work executed by him is in dispute, the duties and reciprocate obligations on the parties to a contract cannot be decided in a writ petition. The petitioner is entitled to work out his remedies as per the terms and conditions of the contract. I do not see any statutory violation of the Rules on the part of the respondents in terminating the contract, under clause 60(a) of PS to APSS, calling for interference by this Court. The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ______________________ JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH 12th May 2010 dr