IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 5305 of 2001 Between: Mayana Ameer Khan, S/o Khuddus Khan, R/o at Nimmanapalle, Nimmanapalle Mandal, Chittoor Dist. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The District Forest Officer, Chittoor West Division, Chittoor District. 2 The Divisional Conservator of Forest, Anantapur. 3 Hayath Basha, R/o Rajampet Mandal, Chittoor District, Andhra Pradesh. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue a Writ, Order of Direction, more particularly one in nature of Writ of CERTIORARI by calling for the records pertaining to R.C.No.2565/A4, dt:-3.3.1999 passed confirming the order of the 1st respondent in R.C.1167/2000-H2, dt:- 3.2.2001 and quash the same of the 2nd respondent after declaring the issuance of the order as arbitrary, illegal, Bad in Law and against the Principles of Natural Justice, and consequently to direct the respondents 1& 2 to allow the petitioner to collect the Beedi leaves for 3rd year i.e. till the end of 31.12.2001 after receiving the proportionate bid amount from the petitioner after cancelling the re- auction order in favour of the 3rd respondent in the interest of Justice. Counsel for the Petitioner:Mr.K.V.Reddy,Smt.B.Niraja Reddy Counsel for Respondents: GP FOR FORESTS The Court made the following : ORAL ORDER: The petitioner is a forest contractor, particularly, for collection of Beedi leaves. He was the successful tenderar for the Banaganapalli Farm Forest of Chittoor District for the years 1999 to 2001. The Divisional Forest Officer, Ananthapur, the second respondent herein, issued notification dated 3.11.1998 proposing to conduct auction for the lease period of three years i.e., from 1.01.1999 to 31.12.2001 for Banaganapalli Farm and other places. The auction was conducted on 22.02.1999. The petitioner emerged as highest bidder for a sum of Rs.2,30,000/-. According to the petitioner he does not know that on emerging as the highest bidder, he must deposit 1/9 of the bid amount on the same day. The petitioner stats that on account of his being illiterate, he did not understand the purport of the conditions, and thereby, did not deposit the amount on the same day, though he had requisite funds. He contends that on coming to know that the amount ought to have been deposited on the same day, he approached respondents 1 & 2 on 1.03.1999 offering to pay the requisite amount, if necessary, with penal interest and that the respondents did not accede to his request. The third respondent is said to have been emerged as highest bidder in the re-auction. The second respondent passed an order dated 3.03.1999 forfeiting the EMD of Rs.5000/- paid by the petitioner and blacklisting him as a contractor for violation of conditions of the tender. The petitioner filed an appeal before the Conservator of Forests, Ananthapur Circle. The appeal was rejected on 3.02.2001. Hence this writ petition. It is urged by the petitioner that he offered to pay the amount much before any order of cancellation of the bid was passed and still the respondents 1 and 2 did not accede to his request. He submits that the blacklisting was done without issuing any notice in this regard and that the same cannot be sustained in law. On behalf of respondents 1 and 2 a counter affidavit is filed. It is stated that condition 20(b) of the tender conditions is clear in its purport and the petitioner did not comply with the same. It is pleaded that even assuming that the petitioner is illiterate, it hardly makes any difference in the context of compliance with the oral conditions. Heard Sri K.V. Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Forests. None appears for the third respondent. It is a matter of record that the petitioner emerged as highest bidder for the block period 1999 to 2001 for a sum of Rs.2,30,000/-. Condition 20 (b) is to the effect that the highest bidder shall deposit 1/9 of the bid amount on the same day. Stating that he is not conversant with writing or reading, the petitioner did not make the deposit. The justification pleaded by the petitioner cannot be accepted. At any rate, the period for which the tender was issued or the offer was made by the petitioner, had expired long back and the contract was awarded in favour of the third respondent in the re- auction. Therefore, no relief can be granted to the petitioner as regards the contract for the period from 1999 to 2001. Apart from forfeiting the EMD of the petitioner and cancelling the bid in his favour, the second respondent directed that the petitioner be blacklisted and prevented from participating in the bids and tenders of the Forest Department in the State. Admittedly, no notice was issued to the petitioner requiring him to explain as to why his name should not be blacklisted. Since blacklisting of an individual would visit him with penal consequences, it is incumbent on the concerned official to issue show cause notice. Therefore, the impugned order, insofar as it directs blacklisting of the petitioner, cannot be sustained in law. For the foregoing reasons, the Writ Petition is partly allowed, and blacklisting of the petitioner in the order dated 3.03.1999 passed by the second respondent, as affirmed in the appeal by the appellate authority, is set aside. ______________________ (L. Narasimha Reddy, J.) 10th December, 2008 Js.