THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION No.22171 of 2008 Dated: 18.02.2010 Between: L.Rama Siva Reddy. .. Petitioner. And The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Irrigation & CAD Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad, And others. .. Respondents. ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a Mandamus declaring the action of the 2nd respondent in passing proceedings No.DB/JTO-5, dated 30.09.2008, forfeiting the EMD amount of Rs.7,88,400/ paid by the petitioner on 25.03.2008, towards security by way of demand draft bearing No.475828 drawn on Bank of Maharastra, Nellore Branch, in favour of the 4th respondent, in connection with tender notice No.SE/SPC/NCR/12/2007-2008, dated 04.03.2008, called for by the 2nd respondent for execution of work at Somasila Project, Kavali canal at Jaladanki Mandal, Nellore District, and recommending to put the petitioner under blacklist with immediate effect, as illegal and arbitrary. There is no necessity of going into all the details. This Court, on 10.10.2008, in WPMP.No.28869 of 2008, suspended the operation of the impugned proceedings, pending further orders. Now, the petitioner filed WPMP.No.4198 of 2010, stating that, earlier, on the allegations similar to that of the allegations leveled against him, basing on which the proceedings under challenge in the present case has been issued, he was denied renewal of his licence, and he challenged the same by filing W.P.No.10277 of 2009, wherein this Court, having found the allegations obnoxious, orally directed to renew his licence and report compliance, and pursuant thereto, the respondents renewed his licence and later on, he has been accorded works, having become successful bidder in the open tender conducted in the month of February, 2009. It is further stated that on 07.12.2009, he made a representation to the 2nd respondent, requesting him to withdraw the impugned proceedings dated 30.09.2008 issued by him, and the 2nd respondent, having received and acknowledged the same on 15.12.2009 vide inward No.19764, has not acted upon the said representation, and therefore, he sought a direction to the 2nd respondent to dispose of the representation submitted by him on 07.12.2009. Today, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the writ petition itself may be disposed of directing the 2nd respondent to dispose of the representation dated 07.12.2009 submitted by the petitioner. Learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents expressed no objection for disposal of the writ petition as pleaded by the learned counsel for the petitioner. In view of the above, the 2nd respondent is directed to consider the representation purported to have been submitted by the petitioner on 07.12.2009 and pass appropriate orders, as per law, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and communicate the same to the petitioner. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. _____________ C.V.RAMULU,J 18.02.2010 v v