ORDER :

This writ petition is filed for the following relief:

“To issue a Writ Order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus by declaring the Endorsement R.O.C.No.21/2018-19/JTO/11 dated 11.10.2019 issued by the second respondent, served on the petitioner on 12.10.2019 informing the petitioner that the contract for Construction of Commercial shops and Compound wall at ROB down in Ward No.30 in Chirala Municipality allotted to petitioner is cancelled as illegal, arbitrary and violation of principles of Natural Justice and violation of Articles 14, 19(1) (g) and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently set aside the said impugned endorsement by declaring the allegation of non performance of the contracted work leveled on the petitioner is utter false and baseless and further declare that the second respondent intentionally failed to fulfill the contract with the petitioner and pass…”

The petitioner’s grievance is that the cancellation of the contract through the impugned order is incorrect and also to declare that the allegation of non-performance of the contract work leveled against the petitioner in incorrect.

This Court has heard Sri U.D.Jai Bhima Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri M.Manohar Reddy, learned standing counsel for the 2nd respondent. Assistant Government Pleader for Municipal Administration appeared for respondent No.1.

The petitioner has entered into a contract with the 2nd respondent for construction of commercial shops and compound wall at a particular place in Chirala Municipality. This work was awarded after a public tender. After the work was awarded, the site was not handed over and the petitioner submits that he does not know why the site etc., were not given to him and that despite several representations to handover the work site, no action was taken by the 2nd respondent. He submits that the impugned endorsement by which the contract is terminated alleges that he has not performed the work. This is stoutly denied by the petitioner. In fact he blames the respondent. The petitioner questions this action and states that as the site itself was never handed over, the said allegation is incorrect. He also argues that the cancellation of the contract is contrary to law and the rules of natural justice.

In reply to this, learned standing counsel Sri Manohar Reddy argues that it is a fact that a contract was awarded to the petitioner and that a formal agreement was signed on 16.02.2019. He alleges that the petitioner has not started the work at all. The stipulated period of completion of the work was 15.05.2019. However, the Government of Andhra Pradesh (as per the learned standing counsel) issued a G.O. canceling all the works that were not grounded or started as on 01.04.2019. Therefore, he submits that pursuant to the Government instructions, as the work was not started, the same was cancelled. He also contends that a writ of Mandamus cannot be issued in a case like this and there are also disputed questions of fact which cannot be gone into or decided is a writ proceeding.

This Court after hearing both the learned counsel notices that there is no dispute about the fact that an agreement was signed between the parties. This agreement is dated 16.02.2019. However, the fact remains that thereafter except for correspondence, virtually no documentary evidence is filed to show that the work was actually commenced. The petitioner accuses the respondent of not giving the work front and the respondents in turn accuses the petitioner of not commencing the work. The fact remains that the work was not commenced or completed. The respondents state that it is not correct to state that the site was not handed over. According to them, there is a delay in concluding the agreement also. Ultimately, it is stated that due to the Government policy of canceling works which were started/grounded, the respondents had no option but to cancel the contract.

The fact therefore remains that t