ORDER:

Heard Sri P. Raja Sripathi Rao, learned Senior Counsel representing Sri Nimmaraboina Naveen, learned counsel for the petitioner; Sri T. Venkat Raju Goud, learned Government Pleader for Labour for respondent Nos.1 to 3; Sri P. Shravan Kumar Goud, learned Government Pleader for Medical Health and Family Welfare, for respondent No.4 and Sri Jalli Kanakaiah, learned Senior Counsel representing Ms. N.V.R. Rajya Lakshmi, learned counsel for respondent No.5. Perused the entire record.

2. The writ petition is filed with the following prayer:

“… to issue an appropriate Writ, Order or Direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the impugned proceedings of the 2nd Respondent vide Proceedings No.A/Outsourcing/JD/(IMS)/2026-27, dated 24.02.2026, whereby the allotment of outsourcing agency in favour of the Petitioner was cancelled unilaterally without notice and the same was allotted to the 5th Respondent, as illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional and violative of the principles of natural justice and consequently set aside the impugned proceedings of the 2nd Respondent vide Proceedings No.A/Outsourcing/JD/(IMS)/2026-27, dated 24.02.2026, and direct Respondent Nos.2 to 4 to permit the Petitioner agency to perform the contract work for the financial year 2026-27 in terms of allotment proceedings vide Proceedings No.A/Outsourcing/JD/(IMS)/2026-27, dated 16.02.2026, and to pass such other order or orders…”

3. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submits that respondent No.2 passed the impugned proceedings dated 24.02.2026 without issuing notice to the writ petitioner in violation of principles of natural justice as the said respondent No.2 also issued proceedings dated 16.02.2026 for continuation of services of the writ petitioner for ESI Dispensaries (Outsourcing and activity basis) in Medchal-Malkajgiri District for the financial year 2026-2027. Having issued said proceedings on 16.02.2026, without notice to the writ petitioner vide proceedings dated 24.02.2026 i.e., within 8 days respondent No.2 discontinued the services of the writ petitioner by allotting the same to respondent No.5.

4. Learned Government Pleader for respondent Nos.1 to 3 relied upon the G.O.Rt.No.4271, dated 01.11.2008 and G.O.Rt.No.4459, dated 27.12.2006 contending that the District Collector/respondent No.2 has powers to determine continuation and termination of Outsourcing Agency without any reason at any point of time.

5. Learned Government Pleader for respondent No.4 furnished copies of letters addressed by respondent No.4 to respondent No.2 expressing satisfaction with the services provided by writ petitioner, with a recommendation to continue the said services.

6. Learned Senior Counsel for respondent No.5 submits that as per the agreement between the writ petitioner and respondent No.2, the services are to be continued only up to 31.03.2026, but on account of abrupt termination of the said services by respondent No.2, W.P.No.26932 of 2025 has been filed and the said petition was disposed with a direction to continue the writ petitioner as per the agreement i.e., upto 31.03.2026. According to the learned counsel for respondent No.5, the proceedings dated 16.02.2026 are meant to comply with the orders passed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in W.P.No.26932 of 2025. However, the contents of the said proceedings dated 16.02.2026 have an anomaly of continuation of services of the writ petitioner for the financial year 2026-27 instead of continuation upto 31.03.2026. In view of the said anomaly, it is not possible to conclude that the proceedings dated 16.02.2026 were issued for the purpose of compliance with the orders passed by Coordinate Bench of this Court in W.P.No.26932 of 2025.

7. As per respective contentions, there is dispute between the writ petitioner and respondent No.5 as to who was allotted to provide services for ESI Dispensaries for the financial year 20