THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA WRIT PETITION No.15771 of 2009 DATED: 04.08.2009 Between: S.K. Roy Chowdary and another .. Petitioners And Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, Hyderabad, Rep. By the Commissioner & Special Officer and another .. Respondents ORDER: This writ petition is filed questioning the impugned proceedings dated 28.07.2009 issued by the 2nd respondent- Zonal Commissioner, North Zone, Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, Hyderabad. It is the case of the petitioners that, pursuant to the notification dated 20.05.2009 issued by the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, inviting applications for pre-qualification, for awarding contract of seasonal works packages under Clean Hyderabad-2009- 2010, for a period of 9 months, they submitted applications and stood as successful bidders. Consequently, they were allotted works for a period of two months from 01.07.2009 to 31.08.2009 on a trial basis, vide proceedings dated 29.06.2009 of the 1st respondent, stating that the period of allotment of work will be extended from 01.09.2009, provided the petitioners satisfy the conditions enumerated in the said proceedings during the trial period. The petitioners state that pursuant thereto, they have been carrying on cleaning works that were entrusted to them as per the terms and conditions stipulated by the Corporation and have completed one month of trial period successfully without any complaints whatsoever from any quarter, and while so, it is their grievance that the 2nd respondent, without issuing any notice whatsoever, has issued the impugned proceedings dated 28.07.2009, cancelling the contract orders issued in their favour for two months on trial basis with effect from 31.07.2009 citing administrative grounds. Aggrieved by such action of the respondents in canceling the contract orders issued in their favour, even before expiry of two months trial period, the petitioners filed the present writ petition. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that while the trial period is subsisting, the action of the respondent Corporation in issuing the impugned proceedings unilaterally, without any notice whatsoever to the petitioners, canceling the contract awarded for two months on trial basis, is arbitrary and illegal. He further contends that if the impugned proceedings, canceling the contract awarded to the petitioners, is not set aside, the petitioner will be put to huge financial loss. Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents- Corporation fairly conceded that the impugned proceedings, canceling the contract awarded to the petitioners for two months on trial basis, was not preceded by any show cause notice, and submitted that the impugned proceedings be set aside granting liberty to the respondent- Corporation to proceed further in the matter, after issuing notice to the petitioners calling for their reply, if any. In view of the agreed stand taken by the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent-Corporation, as noted above, I deem it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition with the following directions: “The impugned proceedings dated 28.07.2009 passed by the respondents-Corporation, canceling the contract awarded to the petitioners on trial basis for two months, is set aside. However, the respondents-Corporation is at liberty to issue notice to the petitioners and, after considering the reply, if any, to be submitted by the petitioners thereto, pass appropriate orders in accordance therewith.” The writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of. No order as to costs. __________________ JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA 4th August, 2009 IBL