THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY Writ Petition No.25444 of 2011 Dated 12th September, 2011 Between: A.V.Chandra Rao …Petitioner And Chirala Municipality, rep.by its Commissioner at Chirala, Prakasam District …Respondent Counsel for the petitioner: Sri Kowturu Vinaya Kumar Counsel for respondent: Sri S.Nageswara Reddy The Court made the following: ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a mandamus to set aside proceedings bearing Roc.No.167,2011E1, dated 18.05.2011, of the respondent, whereby the petitioner is blacklisted. I have heard Sri Kowturu Vinaya Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Sri S.Nageswara Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for Municipalities appearing for the respondent. The petitioner is a Class-III Contractor, who allegedly executed the work relating to the provision of CC roads to Cross Road Nos.1, 6, 7 and 8 in Ward No.11, vide agreement No.48, dated 23.10.2006. By the impugned order, the Commissioner of the respondent-Municipality communicated to the petitioner that by the respondent Council’s resolution No.61, dated 10.05.2011, it has decided to blacklist him until further orders. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the impugned proceedings are not preceded by a notice and that the purported report of the Vigilance and Enforcement Department on which reliance was placed to blacklist the petitioner was not supplied to him. The learned Standing Counsel while stating that the petitioner has come out with a false plea that he has not entered into agreement No.48, dated 23.10.2006, however, conceded that no prior notice was issued to the petitioner before Council has passed resolution to blacklist him. The law is well settled that since an order blacklisting a contractor results in serious adverse consequences, he is entitled to a prior notice and an opportunity of being heard (see Erusian Equipment & Chemicals Limited v. State of West Bengal[1] and Raghunath Thakur v. State of Bihar[2]). As admittedly the respondent failed to give a notice to the petitioner before blacklisting him, following the settled legal position, the impugned order is set aside. Liberty is, however, given to the respondent to initiate action after giving notice to the petitioner and considering the explanation, if any, submitted by him. Subject to the above observations, the writ petition is allowed. As a sequel to disposal of the writ petition, W.P.M.P.No.31330 of 2011 is disposed of as infructuous. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 12th September, 2011 VGB [1] AIR 1975 SC 266 [2] AIR 1989 SC 620