HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO: 2214 of 2007 ORDER: The Peddapuram Municipality/the first respondent herein issued a tender notice dated 22/06/2006 inviting bids for undertaking the work of laying pipeline for water supply and construction of a platform within the municipal limits. The petitioner emerged as the successful tenderer and the work was entrusted to him. Work orders were issued on 28/09/2006. Several notices were issued to the petitioner requiring him to execute the agreement and perform the work. On the ground that the petitioner did not respond to the notices and did not commence the work, the municipality passed a resolution on 30/12/2006 not only canceling the entrustment of the work but also directing the blacklisting of the petitioner for a period of three years. Consequential proceedings were issued by the Commissioner of the Peddapuram Municipal Council on 08/01/2007. The petitioner feels aggrieved by the action of the municipality in blacklisting him. He contends that no show cause notice was issued to him as regards blacklisting. The respondents filed a detailed counter-affidavit. It is stated that the work entrusted to the petitioner was urgent and important in nature and in spite of repeated reminders, the petitioner did not commence the work much less executed the agreement. According to the respondents, the blacklisting of the petitioner does not suffer from any legal infirmity. Heard Sri Ch.Dhanamjaya, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. The grievance of the petitioner is only about his having been blacklisted. It is a settled principle of law that whenever the Government or its agencies intend to blacklist an individual, show cause notice must be issued. The reason is that blacklisting entails in adverse consequences and the person would be debarred from participating in future bids. In the instant case, the respondents, no doubt, issued notices to the petitioner in relation to the work requiring him to execute the agreement and to commence the work. In none of the notices he was required to explain why he be not blacklisted. The Municipal Council ought to have heard the petitioner before it decided to blacklist the petitioner. The impugned order in so far as it cancelled the allotment of the work to the petitioner cannot be found fault with. Hence, the Writ Petition is partly allowed setting aside the impugned order in so far as it directed blacklisting of the petitioner for a period of three years. It is left open to the Municipal Council to issue show cause notice to the petitioner and take further steps if it still intends to blacklist the petitioner. No order as to costs. ____________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY, J 01st June, 2010 SKM