Point of Law: Mere existence of a Clause in the Bid Document, which mentions blacklisting as a bar against eligibility, cannot satisfy the mandatory requirement of a clear mention of the proposed action in the show cause notice.

ORDER :

Writ Petition No.23789 of 2013:

This Writ Petition has been filed to declare the letter bearing No.Vig.2/RWS&S/2937/2009, dated 01.08.2013 issued by the 2nd Respondent, directing the 7th Respondent to recover an amount of Rs.3,46,99,235/- from the work bills of the Petitioner without even putting the Petitioner on notice and without following due process of law, as being illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the principles of natural justice and consequently to set aside the same.

Writ Petition No.35547 of 2013:

2. This Writ Petition has been filed to declare the proceedings issued by the 2nd Respondent vide Proc.No.T1/DEE(T)/V&E/General/2013, dated 23.11.2013, thereby the Petitioner is kept under blacklist duly suspending all business with immediate effect in terms of clause (3) and 5(a), Annexure-II of G.O.Ms.No.94, dated 1.7.2003 of Irrigation & CAD Department and canceling the registration of Petitioner vide Regn.No.COT/SP/791/2010 and Procs. No.T1/DEE(T)/B.Ramanjaneyulu/Regn/Special Class/2010, dated 13.07.2010 as being illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the principles of natural justice and contrary to the orders passed in W.P.No.15792 of 2013 dated 28.11.2013 and contrary to provisions of Clause 5 of G.O.Ms.No.94, dated 1.7.2003 and consequently to set aside the same, in the interest of justice”.

WRIT PETITION No.4741 OF 2014:

3. This writ petition has been filed to declare the inaction and failure of the respondents particularly respondent No.4 in not making the payment of amounts released by the 3rd respondent from time to time as illegal, arbitrary and more over contrary to the order, dated 28.11.2013 passed in W.P.No.15792 of 2013 and order, dated 12.12.2013 in WP MP No.45316 of 2013 in W.P.No.25789 of 2013 and being violative of Article 14 & 19(f) of the Constitution of India and consequential direction.

WRIT PETITION No.19089 OF 2015:

4. This writ petition has been filed to declare the proceedings issued by the 1st Respondent vide Memo No.3131/Vig.II/2014, dated 11.06.2015, through which it was ordered to recover an amount of Rs.3,46,99,235/- from the petitioner, to suspend his business, blacklisting him and to take action for criminal prosecution, as illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the orders, dated 28.11.2013 passed in W.P.No.15792 of 2013 and also against the principles of natural justice and consequently set aside the same.

5. All these writ petitions filed by the same petitioner and the contentions of the petitioner and Respondents are one and the same in all the cases and the proceedings challenged in all writ petitions are inter-linked and consequential. As such, this Court intends to dispose of all these writ petitions by a common order.

6. In W.P.No.23789 of 2013, the 4th Respondent filed counter; in W.P.No.4741 of 2014, the 3rd Respondent filed counter and in W.P.No.19089 of 2015, the 1st Respondent filed counter.

7. For convenience, the averments made in affidavit filed by writ petitioner and counter-affidavit filed by the 1st Respondent in W.P.No.19089 of 2015 and submissions of the respective counsels appearing on both sides are considered.

8. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner is the Special Class Contractor and executed several projects in the State of Andhra Pradesh. He participated in a bid for execution of work viz., “Providing drinking water facilities to the quality affected habitation for Chinaganjam, Parchur and Karamchedu Mandals in Prakasam District” (in short hereinafter referred to as “work”) and was selected in the scrutiny of the bids and the 3rd respondent, Superintendent Engineer, issued proceedings, dated 23.07.2007, entrusting the work to him. Thereupon, he entered into an agreement with 3rd Respondent on 17.09.2007, to execute the work. The tender contract value of the work was Rs.3,59,56,894-31 ps., and he has to complete the work within one year and the scheme was commissioned on 01.04.2008.

9. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner completed the