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.

5. The writ petition is filed for a writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondent in issuing Lr.No.DB/JTO.3/M.19/810M, dated 29.09.2006, and determining the work under clause 60(A) of APDSS duly forfeiting the EMD & FSD to the Government and suspension of business for tendering works for a period of one year without issuing any notice or taking reply or explanation, as illegal and arbitrary, and consequently, direct the respondent not to blacklist or forfeit EMD & FSD without issuing proper notice and set aside the letter, dated 29.09.2006, and to pass such other suitable order.

6. In the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the petitioner had stated that he is a registered contractor, as per various Government Orders, executing all the contract works of the Government without any complaint. He has participated in the tenders of allotment of work of reconstruction of Nelamadugu outlet wall at Ch.7620 M on Chennur Tank supply Channel near Thippavarappadu village in Gudur Mandal, Nellore District and entered into an agreement with respondent authority through Agreement No.98/06-07. The approximate value of the work is Rs.8.00 Lakhs and the work is to be executed within a period of 3 months. The agreement was executed on 26-08-2006.

7. It is also stated that after entering into the agreement with the respondent herein, the petitioner spent money in getting ready of material and men and when he was getting ready, the respondent authority, within a month of concluding the agreement with it, issued notice to start the above said work within seven days, and after some time i.e., on 29-09-2006 within a week period as such direction and within a month after entering into the agreement and having left over two months period for completion of the contractual work, without having any reasons and notice and without taking any reply, issued the letter No.DB/JTO.3/M.19/810 M, dated 29.09.2006, and determined the said work under clause 60(A) of APDSS duly forfeiting the EMD & FSD to the Government and suspension of business for tendering works for a period of one year in terms of G.O.Ms.No.521, dated 16.12.1984.

8. It is also stated that the respondent herein without issuing any notice or taking any reply for his notice of blacklisting contractor like the petitioner through letter, dated 29.09.2006, violating tender rules and regulations and principles of natural justice. The petitioner's work is determined under Clause 60(A) of APDSS duly forfeiting the EMD & FSD to the Government and suspension of business for tending works for a period of one year is illegal, arbitrary and violation of Article 14, 19 (1) g of the Constitution of India and principles of natural justice and also tender rules and regulations, and such