HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.12053 of 2004 Date : 05.08.2009 Between : K.V.Ramachandra Rao. …..Petitioner And Principal Secretary to Government, Irrigation & CAD, Secretariat, Hyderabad & 4 others. …..Respondents HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.12053 of 2004 ORDER : In this writ petition, the petitioner, a Contractor, has challenged the directions issued by the Principal Secretary to Government, Municipal Administration and Urban Development, Hyderabad, in Memo No.63466/MAU/E/2004 (2873)-1, dated 15.05.2004, to the extent of directions for black-listing of petitioner, and the consequential notice, dated 01.07.2004, issued by respondent No.4. 2. During the year 2003-04, tenders were invited for construction of C.C. roads in Viswabrahman Colony of Machilipatnam, and about six Contractors have submitted their bids and the petitioner is one of the Contractors, who offered his rates. In support of the tender form, for award of the said work, he has produced an experience certificate, showing the value of the works executed by him during the period 5/2001 to 5/2003. Subsequently, an inquiry was conducted by the Vigilance and Enforcement Department, and on the ground that the petitioner has executed the works only to a tune of Rs.13.45 lakhs, and he has produced a false certificate, the 2nd respondent has issued the impugned orders for framing charges against certain officials, and in the same order, he has also ordered for black-listing the petitioner-Contractor for submitting fabricated experience certificate. Consequent to the directives issued in Memo No.63466/MAU/E/2004 (2873)-1, dated 15.05.2004, further instructions are issued by the Engineer-in-Chief (Public Health), Hyderabad, in letter No.8926/MPM/T3/2001, dated 16.06.2004, and consequently, the 4th respondent-Commissioner has issued the notice, dated 01.07.2004, inviting explanation from the petitioner. In the same notice, it is observed that there are directions issued by the Engineer-in-Chief, to keep the petitioner under black-list for submitting fabricated experience certificate. 3. The impugned orders are questioned mainly on the ground that there was no opportunity given to the petitioner before directions were issued by the 2nd respondent in Memo No.63466/MAU/E/2004 (2873)-1, dated 15.05.2004. It is submitted that as the order for black-listing will have serious civil consequences on the petitioner for participating in bids, the same should not have been issued without any prior notice or opportunity to him. 4. On the other hand, it is submitted by the learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondent No.2 that the orders for black-listing the petitioner are not yet passed, and when the show cause notice, dated 01.07.2004 is issued by the 4th respondent, the petitioner has approached this Court. 5. I have perused the copy of the Memo, dated 15.05.2004. A reading of the said Memo shows that the Principal Secretary to the Government, Municipal Administration and Urban Development, while issuing instructions for initiating certain departmental proceedings against the officers concerned, has also ordered to black-list the petitioner-Contractor for submitting the fabricated experience certificate. It is the case of the petitioner that the documents produced by him are not fabricated, and inspite of the same, without giving any opportunity to him, orders are issued by the 1st respondent. A further reading of the consequential notice also indicates that there were directives issued by the Engineer-in-Chief, to keep the petitioner in black-list. In view of the directions issued by the 2nd respondent in his orders, dated 15.05.2004, and the further directions issued by the Engineer-in-Chief, Hyderabad, on 16.06.2004, calling for explanation in the consequential notice, dated 01.07.2004, will be only an empty formality. A reading of the notice, dated 01.07.2004 indicates that the same is issued in compliance of the directions issued by the Principal Secretary, Municipal Administration and Urban Development, as well as the Engineer-in-Chief. Though it is submitted that Memo No.63466/MAU/E/2004 (2873)-1, dated 15.05.2004, is a departmental communication, but at the same time, there are directions for black-listing the petitioner. It is a settled law that black- listing a Contractor cannot be ordered unless the Contractor is given a prior opportunity and notice before placing him under black-list. In view of the said settled position, this Court is of the view that the 2nd respondent- Principal Secretary to Government ought not have issued any mandatory directions for black-listing the petitioner. As the said directions were issued without giving any opportunity to the petitioner, and in violation of the principles of natural justice, the impugned Memo to the extent of black-listing the petitioner, is set aside. 6. For the aforesaid reasons, Memo No.63466/MAU/E/2004 (2873)-1, dated 15.05.2004, issued by the 2nd respondent, is quashed to the extent of black-listing the petitioner, and the consequential notice issued by the 4th respondent in Roc.No.3694/04-R1, dated 01.07.2004, is also hereby quashed. However, it is made clear that if any certificates produced by the petitioner are found to have been fabricated for award of contract works, this order will not preclude the competent authority, to issue a fresh notice to him and pass appropriate orders. 7. Subject to above directions, the writ petition is allowed. No order as to costs. ______________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J 5th August 2009 ajr