ORDER :

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader for Irrigation appearing for respondent Nos.1, 3, 5, 7 and 8, and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj appearing for respondent Nos.2, 4, 6 and 9.

2. In brief, the case of the petitioner is that he has been undertaking contract works as Class-I Contractor since 1999. Pursuant to tender notice dated 04.03.2008 issued by the 7th respondent for execution of the work i.e., Somasila Project - Kavali Canal – closing of breach and construction of additional surplus weirs, construction of two sluices and restoration of tank bund of Chinna Craca Balancing Reservoir, with an estimated cost of Rs.7,88,36,331/-, the petitioner submitted his tender within the stipulated period along with the requisite documents and certificates and paid EMD amount. Thereafter, the 7th respondent sent the technical bids of all the contractors to the 6th respondent for finalization and confirmation. Ultimately, the 6th respondent finalized and confirmed the tender in favour of one N. Ramesh Kumar. Subsequently, the 7th respondent issued a notice dated 23.06.2008 to the petitioner stating that the Invoice dated 26.10.1999 submitted by him towards purchase of a concrete mixture is false and calling upon him to submit explanation within fourteen days, for which the petitioner submitted a detailed explanation on 05.07.2008. Despite repeated requests for return of the EMD amount and even after submission of a detailed explanation, the 7th respondent did not choose to return the EMD amount. In such circumstances, having no other option, the petitioner preferred W.P.No.22002 of 2008 seeking a direction to the 7th respondent to return the EMD amount and it is pending.

(i) While matters stood thus, the 7th respondent passed an order dated 30.09.2008 forfeiting the EMD amount and recommending to put the name of the petitioner in blacklist. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner preferred another writ petition being W.P.No.22171 of 2008 and obtained an interim order of suspension of operation of the order dated 30.09.2008 in WPMP No.28869 of 2009, dated 10.10.2008. During pendency of the said writ petition, the petitioner made a representation to the 7th respondent on 07.12.2009 for re-consideration of the order of forfeiture of EMD amount. Ultimately, W.P.No.22171 of 2008 was disposed of on 18.02.2010 with a direction to the respondents to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 07.12.2009 and pass appropriate orders after following the principles of natural justice. Pursuant to that, the 7th respondent addressed a letter dated 27.02.2010 to the 5th respondent requesting to obtain orders from the Government for the return of EMD amount. He opined that the invoice is not the prime factor for tender and the petitioner is Class-I Contractor and the registration certificate produced by him is not fake.

(ii) While so, the then Superintending Engineer, Somasila Project (7th respondent), was retired from service and another person was placed as in-charge in his place, who issued the proceedings dated 18.03.2010 rejecting the representation of the petitioner dated 07.12.2009 without taking into consideration the proceedings dated 27.02.2010, without complying the orders of this Court and without observing the principles of natural justice. The same is questioned in this writ petition.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that registration certificate was issued by the 3rd respondent vide proceedings dated 05.03.2004 and as the original copy was spoiled on account of rough handling, the petitioner obtained a certified copy thereof from the 3rd respondent and submitted the same along with his explanation. The learned counsel would contend that the impugned proceedings are passed without verification of the records and in violation of the directions of this Court in W.P.No.22171 of 2008 dated 18.02.2010. The learned counsel would also contend that when once the then Sup