IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 6553 of 2002 Between: M/s.Siri Goods Transport Rep.by its Partner Shri M.Suryanarayana Rao, S/o.Ramaiah, R/o.H.No.8-1-87/1, STD Complex, Old Beat Bazar, Warangal. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The A.P.State Warehousing Corporation Rep.by its Managing Director, Warehousing Sadan, IInd Floor, Behid Gandhi Bhavan, Nampally, Hyderabad. 2 The Warehousing Manager, A.P.State Warehousing Corporation, Vidyanagar, Warangal. 3 Y.Suryanarayana, S/o.Veeraswami, R/o. Girmajeepeta, Warangal, Warangal District. .....RESPONDENT(S) 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 to issue a Writ, order or direction particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus delcaring the impugned tender notification No.SWC/B.3/H&T/Tender/355/2001, dt.27.3.2002 as totally illegal, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently set aside the same with all consequential benefits and be pleased to pass such other and further order or orders as may be deemed fit. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.KOKA RAGHAVA RAO Counsel for the Respondent No.: ADVOCATE GENERAL The Court made the following : THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY W.P.No. 6553 of 2002 ORDER: The petitioner was awarded transport contract by the Andhra Pradesh State Warehousing Corporation for the period between 23.07.2001 and 23- 06-2003 in respect of some place in Warangal District. Even while the contract was in subsistence, the corporation issued tender notice, dated 27.03.2002 in respect of various places including Warangal. The grievance of the petitioner is that the proposed tender cuts into the rights covered by the agreement in its favour. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. The contract in favour of the petitioner was up to 23.06.2003. Beyond that date, the petitioner does not have any right to insist that it would be awarded any work. Secondly, the contract proposed to be awarded through the impugned tender notice was for a period of two years and even that period had expired. At any rate, the interest of the petitioner was protected through the interim order passed by this court. Nothing remains to be decided in the writ petition and it is accordingly dismissed as infructuous. There shall be no order as to costs. ____________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY, J 19.11.2008 Stp ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{KMR}