These Writ Petitions are being disposed of by this common Order in view of the commonality of the facts and also the close nexus between the subject matter of controversy between the parties.

2. In W.P.No.8752/2006 rule nisi was issued on 8-6-2006 and in W.P.M.P. No.11143/2006 interim suspension as prayed for was granted.

3. The Writ Petition is filed for a Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondent No.3 in cancelling the experience certificate issued on 20-6-2005 to the petitioner without a notice to the petitioner at the instance of respondent No. 4 as illegal, arbitrary, unfair, unreasonable and also opposed to the principles of natural justice and consequentially the petitioner prays that this Court direct the respondents to permit the petitioner to have the benefit of the experience certificate obtained by him in the light of clause 15 of the Annexure annexed to the Rules issued in G.O.Ms.No.94, Irrigation & CAD., dated 1-7-2003 and pass such other suitable orders.

4. The self-same writ petitioner filed W.P .No.19044/2006 and rule nisiwas issued on 13-9-2006 and interim direction was grated for a limited period in W.P.M.P.No.23953/2006 which was further extended for a limited period and further extended until further orders on 27-9-2006. W.V.M.P.No.1836/2006 is filed to vacate the interim order made in W.P.M.P.No.23953/2006 in W.P. No.19044/2006.

5. The relief prayed for in W.P. No.19044/2006 is for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of respondents 1 and 2 in refusing to open the price bid of the petitioner in respect of the works vis., (1) Formation of right side flood bank of Mamidi Kalva from Chain 0.00 meters to 1200 meters near Gollapalern (v) in Ozili Mandai of Nellore District for an estimated contract value of Rs.77,97,580/-; (2) Mamidi Kalva Flood Bank from 0.00 metres to 1600 meters near Papireddy Kandrika in Ozili Mandai of Nellore District for an estimated contract value of Rs.1,28,37,226/-; and (3) Mamidi Kalva Flood Bank near Graddagunta from 0.00 meters to 1200 meters for an estimated value of Rs.62,57,187/- on rejection of the technical bid of the petitioner on the ground of invalidity of the experience certificate produced by the petitioner without a notice and in accepting the only remained tender of the respondent No.3 as illegal, void, arbitrary and discriminatory and opposed to the principles of natural justice and consequentially to direct the official respondents to consider the experience certificate produced by the petitioner which is still valid in the light of the orders of the this Court in W.P.M.P. No.11143/2000 in W.P. No.8752/2006, dt.8-6-2006, and to consider the price bid of the petitioner for awarding of the work on the basis of its own merits and to pass such other suitable orders.

6. Heard Sri M.R.K. Chowdary, the learned senior Counsel representing the writ petitioner in both the Writ Petitions and G. P. for Municipal Administration, G.P. for Irrigation & CAD, Sri K. Ratangapani Reddy and also Sri E. Dhanumjaya.

7. Sri M.R.K. Chowdary, the learned senior Counsel representing the writ petitioner in both the Writ Petitions had taken this Court through the contents of the respective pleadings of the parties and had pointed out to the relevant portions of the material papers and would maintain that the Superintending Engineer would be a party to the agreement though ultimately the Tender Committee may decide. The learned senior Counsel also had explained the relationship between the prime contractor and the sub-contractor and would maintain that how the Superintending Engineer is connected with the execution of the works. The learned senior Counsel also would contend that the status of the sub-contractor is not in serious dispute and the proceeding of the Superintending Engineer would clearly reflect the same and inasmuch as experience certificate had been granted, there cannot be any order of cancellation without notice to the petitioner and without affording