IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 28291 of 2007 Between: M.Mohan S/o.M.K.Mudaliar R/o.8-1095,Bapuji colony, Sullurpet, Nellore District ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Chief Construction Engineer, Civil engineering Divison (CED), SHAR, SRIHARIKOTA,Nellore District 2 The Head Engineer Maintenance Engineering and Maintenance Divison (E.M.E.D) SHAR SRIHARIKOTA, Nellore District 3 Head (Technical Group), Civil Engineering Division (CED), SHAR SRIHARIKOTA, Nellore District .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court may be pleased to issue writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the action of respondents in debarring the petitioner from participating in tenders of their department for a period of 5 years vide proceedings No.CED/CCE/TG/Agri Grain/4765 dated 12.11.2005 as illegal, and arbitrary, and consequently direct the respondents to allow the petitioner herein to participate in all future tenders of their department. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.P.RAVI KIRAN Counsel for the Respondents: MR.A.RAJASHEKAR REDDY (ASST SOLICITOR GEN) The Court made the following : ORDER: In this writ petition the proceeding No.CED/CCE/TG/Agni Grain/4765, dated 12.11.2007, issued by the Head (Technical Group), Civil Engineering Division (CED), SHAR, SRIHARIKOTA, Nellore District-3rd respondent is under challenge. 2. The averments of the writ affidavit, in brief, are: The petitioner is a Class-I contractor by profession. He worked in various building and construction companies and became a contractor in 1984. He grew upto the level of Class-I Contractor and he undertook several contractual works of the respondents- Organization and completed the works in time without any complaints. The respondents issued tender notice No.CED/CCE/C/M078726, dated 16.10.2007, calling for the tenders for the civil contract work “SDSC SHAR – AGNI GRAIN/CARTON CURING FACILITY at SPROB”. He made an application on 30.10.2007 to the Chief Construction Engineer, Civil Engineering Division (CED), SHAR, SRIHARIKOTA, Nellore District-1st respondent with necessary documents for issuance of tender schedule. His request came to be rejected under the proceedings impugned in the writ petition. 3. Notice before admission has been ordered on 31.12.2007. The respondents entered appearance and filed counter-affidavit. K.G.Krishna Murthy, Engineer – SE, O/o.Civil Engineering Division, Department of Space, Govt. of India, SHAR, Sriharikota, Nellore District, has sworn to the counter-affidavit. Para.8 of the counter-affidavit needs to be noted and it is hereunder: “The PCC base concrete thickness was less than the specified in the drawing in plant maintenance workshop building executed during 2005. PCC core samples were taken through an external agency M/s. Civil Aid Techno Clinic Pvt. Limited, Chennai and the work done was found not as per drawing annexure VI. In view of his bad and substandard work though he was lowest tenderer for construction of GLR at SLP, the tender was cancelled and fresh tenders were called (Annexure-VII). Sri M.Mohan was issued a letter vide No.CED/CCE/TG/GEN/2005/3209, dt.14-11-2005 (Annexure-VIII) informing that tender schedules for new works will be issued only after improving the quality in the ongoing work and based on good manners with Department staff.” 4. When the writ petition came up for admission, with the consent of learned counsel for the parties, it is taken up for final disposal. 5. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned Assistant Solicitor General appearing for the respondents. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was not put on notice before blacklisting him and therefore, the proceedings impugned in the writ petition are liable to be set aside. 7. Learned Assistant Solicitor General appearing for the respondents submits that the petitioner was served number of notices directing him to complete the works entrusted to him and since he did not complete the works entrusted to him, the impugned proceedings in the writ petition came to be issued debarring him. 8. The text of the proceedings impugned in the writ petition reads as hereunder: “With reference to your request for issue of tender schedules for the subject work, it is hereby informed that you have been debarred in this Department for participating in the tenders for 5 years. Hence, the tender schedule cost Rs.1136/- furnished vide ref(2) is returned herewith. Please acknowledge the receipt of the same.” 9. Indisputably no show-cause notice was served on the petitioner before debarring him from participating in the tenders. Debarring the petitioner from participating in the tenders without serving show-cause notice amounts to violation of principles of natural justice. It is well settled that blacklisting has the effect of preventing a person from the privilege and advantage of entering into lawful relationship with the Government for purposes of gains. The fact that a disability is created by the order of blacklisting indicates that the relevant authority is to have an objective satisfaction. Fundamentals of fair-play require that the person concerned should be given an opportunity to represent his case before he is put on the blacklist. - Vide decision of the Supreme Court in Joseph Vilangandan v. The Executive Engineer (P.W.D.), Ernakulam[1] 10. In that view of the matter, the proceeding impugned in the writ petition cannot be sustained. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed at the admission stage setting aside the proceeding No.CED/CCE/TG/Agni Grain/4765, dated 12.11.2007, issued by the Head (Technical Group), Civil Engineering Division (CED), SHAR, SRIHARIKOTA, Nellore District-3rd respondent. The respondents are at liberty to initiate proceedings against the petitioner after issuing show- cause notice to him. No costs. ______________________ B.SESHASAYANA REDDY, J. Date:16th July, 2008. cs ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{TRK} [1] AIR 1978 S.C. 930