This Court issued Rule nisi on 11.10.2006 and in WPMP.No.26725 of 2006, an interim direction had been granted directing the respondent not to deny the petitioner in participating in future contracts until further orders. WVMP No.914 of 2007 is filed to vacate the interim order.

2. Sri Koonreddy Anji Reddy, the learned counsel representing the petitioner, would maintain that the alleged show cause notice, on which the respondents is relying upon, is in relation to a different ground altogether, and even otherwise, the same is vague. Specifically, for putting the petitioner in the blacklist, no show cause notice, as such, had been issued and no explanation had been called for, and hence, the same is in violation of principles of natural justice. The counsel also placed strong reliance on M/s. Erusian Equipment and Chemicals Ltd., v. State of West Bengal and another1.

3. Per contra, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Irrigation had taken this Court through the contents of the counter affidavit and would maintain that the due procedure had been followed while making this order, and hence, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.

4. Heard the counsel