The brief facts, for the purpose of disposal of the Writ Petition, are stated as under:-

2. Pursuant to a notification issued by the 1st respondent Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Limited (hereinafter referred to as Oil Company) for the execution of work under the title Hiring of Gas Dehydration System for Five production installations at Rajahmundry Assets (hereinafter referred to as Gas Dehydration Work), the petitioner has participated in the tender process and become the successful bidder. A contract agreement dated 24.06.2015 was also executed in favour of the petitioner. The term of the contract is for 3 years and the petitioner is required to mobilize and install the necessary equipment within 120 days and accordingly, it has commenced the work within the stipulated period. A show cause notice dated 28.04.2017 was issued against the petitioner alleging that it had claimed the experience of M/s Craft production systems inc. Texas, (CPS), which, in fact, did not have the relevant experience and as the contract dated 24.06.2015 was awarded based on a misrepresentation, it is liable to be terminated. The petitioner claims that necessary replies were submitted. After considering the said explanations submitted by the petitioner and after exchange of correspondence, finally, the contract agreement came to be terminated by the order dated 31.07.2017. However, the petitioner was directed to carry on the operations for a further period of 300 days. Simultaneously, by letter dated 03.08.2017, he was also prohibited from participating in future tenders. Challenging the said proceedings, the petitioner filed Writ Petition No.26400 of 2017, wherein an interim order was passed by this Court on 08.08.2017, which, on Appeal (Writ Appeal No. 1149 of 2017), came to be modified by the Division Bench of this Court on 21.08.2017 restricting the scope of blacklisting.

3. While things stood thus, vide impugned proceedings dated 17.08.2017, the petitioner was directed to remit a sum of Rs.66.95 crores, on account of alleged excess payments received up to 31.05.2017 and further, the respondents proposed to pay a lower rate based on the rates quoted by the petitioner in subsequent tenders. Aggrieved by the said decision of the respondent corporation dated 17.08.2017, challenging the same as illegal and contrary to the contract agreement, the petitioner filed the present Writ Petition.

4. Learned Senior Counsel Sri Vedula Venkata Ramana appearing for the petitioner contends that the action of the respondents in unilaterally determining that they had made excess payments, is totally impermissible, as the same is like - a party to the contract unilaterally determining the damages, which are payable, though there is a specific mechanism for determination of the damages. Placing reliance on the judgments of the Supreme Court in State of Karnataka v. Shree Rameshwara Rice Mills, (1987) 2 SCC 160 Union of India v. Tantia Construction Private Limited, (2011) 5 SCC 697 Harbanslal Sahnia v. Indian Oil Corpn. Ltd., (2003) 2 SCC 107 and Noble Resources Ltd. Vs. State of Orissa, (2006) 10 SCC 236 the learned Senior Counsel submits that such unilateral determination is illegal and impermissible. By placing reliance on Zonal Manager, Central Bank of India v. Devi Ispat Limited, (2010) 11 SCC 186 ABL International Ltd. V. Export Credit Guarantee Corporation of India Ltd., (2004) 3 SCC 553 the respondent Corporation being a State, within Article 12 of the Constitution of India, cannot act arbitrarily in total derogation of the contractual terms and in those circumstances learned senior counsel for the petitioner prays for Writ of mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in issuing the impugned communication dated 17.08.2017 as illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional.

5. Sri D. Prakash Reddy, learned Senior Advocate instructed by Sri K. Venkata Rao for respondent company opposes the very entertainment of the Writ Petition. The learned Senior Counsel su