IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION NO : 7954 of 2008 And WRIT PETITION NO : 10998 of 2008 IN WRIT PETITION NO : 7954 of 2008 Between: A.V.V. Satyanarayana, S/o. Late Sri Ande Raghava Rao, R/o. K.P. Palem, Mogaltur Manal, West Godavari District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Secretary, Panchayat Raj and Rural Development Department Secretariat, Hyderabad. 2 The Chief Engineer, NABARD (PR) Hyderabad. 3 The Superintending Engineer, Panchayat Raj Circle, Kakinada, East Godavari District. 4 The Executive Engineer, Panchayat Raj, Amalapuram, East Godavari District. 5 The Deputy Executive Engineer, Panchayat Raj Sub Division, P. Gannavaram, East Godavari District. 6 The Assistant Pay and Accounts Officer, S.A.C.B., Dowlaiswaram, East Godavari District. 7 State Bank of Hyderabad, Narsapur Branch, Narsapur, West Godavari District, Rep. by its Branch Manager. .....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 a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ, order or direction declaring the Proceedings No. 531/2006/AE3 dt. 29-3-2008 issued by the Superintending Engineer, Panchayat Raj Circle, Kakinada, East Godavari District, 3rd respondent herein wherein the 3rd respondent cancelled the Agreement for the work pertaining to providing BT to the road from SM Road to Magatapalli (via) Vegivaripalem and forfeited all the deposits and dues payable to the Petitioner as illegal, arbitrary, unreasonable, null and void and violative of Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) Constitution of India and violative of the Principles of Natural Justice and Consequently direct the Respondents herein to pay to the Petitioner herein all the deposits and all the dues payable to the petitioner herein. Counsel for the Petitioner : MR.A.V.SESHA SAI Counsel for the Respondents : GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ & RURAL DEV. IN WRIT PETITION NO : 10998 of 2008 Between: A.V.V. Satyanarayana, S/o. late Sri Ande Raghava Rao, R/o. K.P.Palem, Mogaltur Mandal, West Godavari District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Government of Andhra Prahesh, Rep. by its Secretary, Panchayat Raj and Rural Development Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad. 2 The Chief Engineer, NABARD (PR), Hyderabad. 3 The Superintending Engineer, Panchayat Raj Circle, Kakinada, East Godavari District. 4 The Executive Engineer, Panchayat Raj, Amalapuram, East Godavari District.. 5 The Deputy Executive Engineer, Panchayat Raj Sub Division, P. Gannavaram, East Godavari 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 a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction declaring the Memo. No.8217/Prog.II(1)/2008 dt.23.04.2008 issued by the Government of Andhra Pradesh, 1st Respondent herein as illegal, arbitrary, unreasonable, null and void and violative of Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) Constitution of India. Counsel for the Petitioner : MR.A.V.SESHA SAI Counsel for the Respondents : GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ & RURAL DEV. The Court made the following common order : THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI WRIT PETITION No.7954 OF 2008 AND WRIT PETITION No.10998 OF 2008 COMMON ORDER : The petitioner in both these writ petitions is a Special Class Contactor. Pursuant to the tenders invited by the 2nd respondent – Chief Engineer, NABARD, Panchayat Raj, the petitioner who was declared as the successful bidder was awarded a contract namely providing BT to the road from SM Road to Magatapalli (via) Vegivaripalem in West Godavari District. Accordingly agreement dated 4.5.2005 was entered into between the petitioner and the 3rd respondent – Superintending Engineer, Panchayat Raj Circle, Kakinada, vide Agreement No.6/2005- 2006 under which the work was agreed to be completed by 3.2.2006. Admittedly the work could not be completed within the stipulated period in spite of the extensions granted which ultimately resulted in cancellation of the agreement dated 4.5.2005 duly forfeiting the deposits and dues payable vide proceedings of the 3rd respondent dated 29.3.2008. Thereafter, the 1st respondent – Government of A.P. issued Memo dated 23.4.2008 granting permission to the 2nd respondent to take up the balance work and to complete the same departmentally at an early date. Aggrieved by the said action of the respondents, these two writ petitions are filed. Whereas W.P.No.7954 of 2008 is filed challenging the order of cancellation of the agreement, in W.P.No.10998 of 2008 the consequential memo issued by the 1st respondent dated 23.4.2008 for completion of the balance work through the Department is questioned. It is primarily contended by the petitioner that the impugned action of the respondents is arbitrary, illegal and in violation of the principles of natural justice since the petitioner was not issued any prior notice. It is also pleaded that though the petitioner made a representation dated 1.2.2008 explaining the reasons for the delay in execution of work and seeking extension of time, the respondents failed to consider the same and terminated the contract arbitrarily. However, I am not inclined to entertain the writ petitions and adjudicate on merits since the dispute which arose out of a non- statutory contract is not in the realm of public law. The learned counsel for the petitioner while placing reliance upon a decision of this Court in B.R.G.K.S.V. EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY v. GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH[1] vehemently contended that though the agreement in question is non-statutory, the said fact by itself does not disentitle the petitioner to maintain the writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The learned counsel submitted that since the petitioner was not given an opportunity to submit his explanation against the order of termination dated 29.3.2008 as well as consequential memo dated 23.04.2008, the impugned proceedings are in violation of the principles of natural justice and are ex facie illegal and therefore notwithstanding the fact that the dispute arose out of a non-statutory contract, it is open to the petitioner to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of this court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It is true that there is no absolute bar as such to exercise the plenary power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and in appropriate cases it is always open to this Court to interfere even in matters arising out of a non-statutory contract. However, so far as the case on hand is concerned, admittedly the period of agreement expired on 3.2.2006. On a request made by the petitioner further extensions were granted and the petitioner could complete upto Gr.II Layer. It is clear from the material on record that though the petitioner undertook to complete further work by 31.10.2007 he could not comply with the same. Even thereafter he made a representation dated 1.2.2008 requesting to permit him to proceed with the balance work with current S.S. rates. Since the same was not acceptable to the respondents and the work which was scheduled to be completed long back by 3.2.2006 was held up, it appears that the respondents decided to cancel the agreement. From the above facts which are not in dispute, it is clear that though the petitioner was granted extensions from time to time he could not complete the work as per the agreed terms. It is not a case where the impugned order of cancellation was passed without informing the petitioner about the lapses on his part and without giving him an opportunity to explain the same. Hence, I do not find any substance in the contention that the impugned action of the respondents was in violation of the principles of natural justice. The petitioner could not even make out a case to show that the impugned proceedings were contrary to any of the terms and conditions agreed upon between the parties. In the circumstances, I am of the opinion that the petitioner cannot maintain these writ petitions invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In the result, both these Writ Petitions are dismissed. However, this shall not preclude the petitioner to work out the appropriate remedy as available under law for redressal of his grievance, if any. No costs. ______________ G. ROHINI,J. Dt. 17.06.2008 gbs [1] 2008 (2) ALT 297