IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE FIFTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION NO : 18770 of 2008 Between: M/s. J.S.Engineering Works, Rep. by the Proprietor, I.Shambabu, S/o. Narasimha Murthy H.O. K.Joshi Babu, r/o. D.No. 3-29-13/2A, 4th Line, Krishnanagar, Guntur - 6. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, Guntur - I, Depot, rep. by its Depot Manager, Guntur-I. 2 The Regional manager, A.P.S.R.T.C., Guntur Distirct. .....RESPONDENTS 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 an appropriate writ or order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 1st respondent in terminating the contract of the petitioner in its proceedings No.P1/122(1)/07-GNT-I dated 31.03.200 is illegal, arbitrary and against the principles of natural justice and consequently direct the respondents to release the security deposit amount and arrears in favour of the petitioners. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.RAMA MOHAN PALANKI Counsel for the Respondent No.: C.PRAKASH REDDY(SC FOR APSRTC) WRIT PETITION NO : 18772 of 2008 Between: M/s.J.S.Engineering Works, rep.by the Proprietor I.Shambabu, S/o.Narasimha Murthy H.O. K.Joshi Babu, R/o. R/o.D.No.3-29-13/2A,4th Line Krishnanagar, Guntur- 6 ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, Tenali Depot, Rep.by its Depot Manager, Tenali-I 2 The Regional Manager, A.P.S.R.T.C., Guntur District .....RESPONDENTS 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 an appropriate writ or order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the action of the 1st respondent in terminating the contract of the petitioner in its proceedings No.03/E1/437(2)/07/TNL dated 25.7.2008 is illegal, arbitrary, and against the principles of natural justice and consequently direct the respondents to release the security deposit amount three months salary and arrears in favour of the petitioners. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.RAMA MOHAN PALANKI Counsel for the Respondent No.: C.PRAKASH REDDY(SC FOR APSRTC) WRIT PETITION NO : 18775 of 2008 Between: M/s. J.S. Engineering Works, rep. by the Proprietor I. Shambabu, S/o. Narasimha Murthy H.O. K. Joshi Babu, R/o. D.No.3-29-13/2A, 4th Line, Krishnanagar, Guntur-6. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Andhra Pradesh Road Transport Corporation, Mangalagiri Depot, rep. by its Depot Manager, Mangalagiri. 2 The Regional Manager, A.P.S.R.T.C., Guntur District. .....RESPONDENTS 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 an appropriate writ or order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the action of the 1st respondent in terminating the contract of the petitioner in its proceedings No.M1/122(10)/2007-MG dated 12.5.2008 is illegal, arbitrary and against the principles of natural justice and consequently direct the respondents to release the security deposit amount, three months salary and arrears in favour of the petitioners. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.RAMA MOHAN PALANKI Counsel for the Respondent No.: C.PRAKASH REDDY(SC FOR APSRTC) The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI WRIT PETITION Nos.18770, 18772 and 18775 of 2008 C O M M ON O R D E R : The petitioner in all these three writ petitions is one M/s. J.S. Engineering Works, a proprietor concern, who was granted a contract for supply of ITI candidates to APSRTC depots at Guntur-I, Tenali and Mangalagiri respectively. The period of contract is valid up to 25-06-2009. While so, the petitioner was served with a show cause notice dated 13-02-2008 calling upon the petitioner to submit its explanation for the alleged violation of clauses of the agreements and submit the documentary proof within 7 days, failing which further course of action shall be taken for termination of the contract. In the said show cause notice it was alleged that a representation was received from the workers engaged by the petitioner stating that the petitioner was collecting Rs.2,500/- from each worker as security deposit and that he was paying only Rs.2,000/- per month to each worker. It was alleged that the action of the petitioner was contrary to clause 21 and 23 of the agreement. The petitioner submitted a detailed explanation dated 23-02-2008 denying the allegations made by the Corporation. However, the Corporation, while observing that the explanation of the petitioner was not satisfactory, by order, dated 31-03- 2008, terminated the contact in respect of all the three depots. Hence, these three writ petitions challenging the orders of termination as arbitrary and illegal. I have heard the learned counsel for both the parties and perused the material on record. The entire challenge in these writ petitions is that the ﬁndings recorded by the Corporation that the petitioner had acted in violation of clause Nos.21 and 23 of the agreements, is erroneous and unsustainable. As already noticed above, the allegations are that the petitioner failed to pay the minimum wages ﬁxed by the Commissioner of Labour as required under clause 21 of the agreement and that the petitioner also acted contrary to clause 23 of the agreement. The correctness of the ﬁndings recorded against the petitieonr on such issues involving several disputed question of fact, cannot be enquired into and decided by this Court while exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. It is apparent that the petitioner was given a reasonable opportunity and the impugned orders were passed after considering the explanation oﬀered by the petitioner. Thus, the impugned action of the respondent-Corporation is not in violation of the principles of natural justice and no case is made out to show that the respondent-Corporation has acted in violation of any of the statutory provisions. Hence, the interference by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is unwarranted. Accordingly, the writ petitions are dismissed leaving it open to the petitioner to work out the appropriate remedy before the proper forum for redressal of its grievance, if any. So far as the allegation that the respondents failed to release even the security deposit and the arrears to which the petitioner is entitled to, it is open to the petitioner to make an appropriate application before the Corporation, in which event the same shall be considered in accordance with law. No costs. _____________ G. ROHINI, J Date: 05-09-2008 KLP