ORDER:

This writ petition is filed for the following relief:

“To issue an order or direction or writ more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondent authorities in calling for fresh tenders vide RC.No.A1/1107/2020 as amended in R.C.No.M1/1105/2020 dated 01.10.2020 during subsistence of the contract agreement dated 27.09.2019 with the petitioner for the work of Housekeeping Mechanized Sanitation and Sweeping services as highly arbitrary illegal null and void and against norms of public policy and principles of natural justice and violative of fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution of India and consequently to direct the respondent authorities to continue services of the petitioner for the work of providing Housekeeping Mechanized Sanitation and Sweeping services to the

3rd respondent temple…”

This Court has heard Sri V.V.N.Narayana Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Madhava Rao, learned counsel for the 3rd respondent and the Government Pleader for Endowments for respondent Nos.1 and 2.

Learned counsel for the petitioner essentially argues that the petitioner has been given a work of housekeeping, sanitization etc., in the 3rd respondent temple from 23.09.2019 to 31.03.2021. According to the contention of the petitioner, he has satisfactorily performed the work and without considering the case of the contractor-petitioner for extension, a fresh tender notification was called for. Learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon clause 1.9 of the tender conditions which is as follows:

1.9 TIME SCHEDULE:

The contract agreement is for 18 months 15 days which can be extended further a period of one year at the discretion of the SDMS DEVASTHANAM, VIJAYAWADA, on the same terms depending upon the Contractor’s performance which shall be reviewed at the end of each year. However, SDMS DEVASTHANAM VIJAYAWADA reserves the right to rescind the contract agreement at any time by giving 1(One) month notice if the services of the Contractor are not found satisfactory or up to the standards at any stage or it is found that the Tenderer has secured the contract through fraudulent means or documents, information based on which the bid of the successful tenderer has been accepted or non-fulfilment of any other serious obligation on the part of the Contractor as per provision of tender/contract. The decision of SDMS DEVASTHANAM, VIJAYAWADA in respect of above will be final in this regard.”

Learned counsel for the petitioner argues that as the services of the petitioner are satisfactory, calling for the fresh tenders without terminating contract of the petitioner or giving any intimation or notice is incorrect and arbitrary. Learned counsel argues that he is questioning the process by which the fresh tenders have been called and he argues that the decision making process is arbitrary.

In reply to this, learned standing counsel for the 3rd respondent temple submits that the work under the agreement of the petitioner is upto 31.03.2021 only and that the respondent has the right to call for fresh tenders and that this Court cannot interdict the issuance of a tender. He points out that other than filing the tender notification, the petitioner has not filed anything else to justify his stand. Learned standing counsel also submits that the extension of the contract is not mandatory and it is at the discretion of the Devasthanam. This is also dependent upon the review of the performance at the end of the year. Learned standing counsel also points out that even the letter dated 07.09.2020 which is relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the Executive Officer sought permission to continue the work of the petitioner till 31.03.2021 and thereafter finalize fresh tenders. He also points out that by the time the matter was heard, March, 2021 had already commenced and that this Court should not set aside the tender or grant a Mandamus.

This Court after hearing learned counsel notices that