THE HON'BLE Ms. JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION No. 9878 OF 2011 Dated: 20.04.2011 Between: K.Murali Krishna Reddy ..... PETITIONER AND Divisional Railway Manager (Works), S.C.Railway and another .....RESPONDENTS The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE Ms. JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION No. 9878 OF 2011 ORDER : This writ petition is filed seeking a declaration that the tender notice dated 28.03.2011 issued by the 1st respondent inviting sealed tenders for certain works is arbitrary and illegal so far as work in item No.1 viz., “Repairs to existing Bank of Cess and side slopes of Bank at various locations between Nalgonda – Nadikudi stations at Km.135.82 – 138.72; 139 –18 – 143.48; and 144.42 – 151.75 (Total 14.53 Kms.)” is concerned. It is not in dispute that the petitioner was awarded the said work vide proceedings dated 23.03.2010 and it was supposed to be completed by 22.12.2010. However, in spite of repeated reminders, the petitioner failed to commence the work. As there was no progress even to series of notices issued, EMD amount of Rs.87,000/- paid by the petitioner was adjusted towards security deposit and by letter dated 24.03.2011 the petitioner was called upon to pay the balance amount of Rs.2,24,025/- towards security deposit. The petitioner was also informed that the performance guarantee submitted by him would be enchased by the Railways if the work is not completed. Thereafter the impugned tender notice was issued inviting sealed tenders for the work which the petitioner failed to execute. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition is filed contending inter alia that the action of the respondents in inviting fresh tenders without terminating the contract awarded to him earlier is arbitrary and illegal. Sri P.Bhaskar, who accepted notice for the respondents, on instructions submitted that by separate proceedings dated 24.03.2011, the petitioner’s contract was terminated in terms of clause 62 of General Conditions of Contract. A copy of the said notice has been placed before this Court along with acknowledgement, which shows that the said notice was served on the petitioner on 28.03.2011. In the circumstances, the contention of the petitioner that the contract in his favour is still subsisting, cannot be accepted. Consequently the impugned action of the respondents in inviting fresh tenders cannot be held to be arbitrary or illegal on any ground whatsoever. The claim of the petitioner for refund of the security deposit and performance Guarantee cannot be adjudicated in this writ petition and it is for the petitioner to workout the appropriate remedy as available under law before the proper forum. Accordingly, granting liberty to the petitioner to avail the other remedies as available under law for redressal of his grievances arising out of the earlier contract dated 23.03.2010, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs. ___________ G. ROHINI, J Date: 20.04.2011 Ivd