IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA WRIT PETITION No : 27589 of 2008 Between: K.Venkateshwar Reddy S/o.Ram Reddy R/o.H.No.1-7-493, Revenue Colony, besides Collector's Office Subedari, Hanamkonda, Warangal District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Project Manager, Information Technology & Communication Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad. 2 Andhra Pradesh Technology Services Ltd., B R K R Bhavan, "B" Block, Tank Bund Road, Hyderabad. 3 Superintending Engineer, Panchayat Raj, Warangal, Warangal District. 4 Superintending Engineer, Irrigation & Command Development Department, Hyderabad. 5 State of Andhra Pradesh, represented by the Secretary to Government, I.T. & C. Department, 3rd Floor, D-Block, Secretariat, Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to to issue an appropriate Writ, order or direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the Respondents in disqualifying the Petitioner from participating in any tenders on 'e-Procurement Platform" by debarring the Petitioner I-key User ID as also the Letter No. 3499/IT&C/eproc/2008 dated 26.11.2008 of the 5th Respondent as illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional and in violation of principles of natural justice and set aside the said action as well as the letter and direct the Respondents to permit the petitioner to participate in tenders on "E-Procurement Platform" without any hindrance/restrictions and to pass such other order or orders. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.Y.ASHOK RAJ Counsel for the Respondent No.1 & 5: GP FOR INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY & COMMUNICATIONS. Counsel for the Respondent No.2 : Sri C.RAGHU Counsel for the Respondent No.3 : G.P.FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ Counsel for the Respondent No.4 : G.P. FOR IRRIGATION. The Court made the following : ORDER: This writ petition is filed seeking a Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in disqualifying the petitioner from participating in any tenders on “e-Procurement Platform” by debarring his I-key User ID as also the letter No.3499/IT&C/eproc/2008 dated 26.11.2008 of the 5th respondent, as illegal and arbitrary and consequently set aside the said action as well as the letter and direct the respondents to permit the petitioner to participate in tenders on “e-Procurement Platform” without any hindrance. Earlier the petitioner filed W.P.No.10986 of 2008 questioning the order passed in G.O.Ms.No.245 I & CAD Department, dated 30.12.2005 by the Project Manager, Information Technology and Communication Department-1st respondent herein. This Court, by order dated 04.11.2008, disposed of the said writ petition with a liberty to the petitioner to make a representation to the Committee within a week from the date of that order detailing the circumstances under which he failed to submit the hard copies and thereupon the committee shall consider and pass appropriate orders within three weeks thereon. Pursuant to the order of this Court, the petitioner made a representation/appeal to the 5th respondent herein on 11.11.2008. However, the 5th respondent, after considering the entire material, passed an order dated 26.11.2008, rejecting the request of the petitioner for revocation of suspension of user ID on “e-Procurement platform. Hence the writ petition. Heard both sides. The facts are not in dispute. Though the 5th respondent, in the impugned order, refers to the order dated 04.11.2008 passed by this Court in W.P.No.10986 of 2008, did not make a mention of the representation/appeal dated 11.11.2008 filed by the petitioner. Further the order impugned in this writ petition does not state that it had given any opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner. In the aforementioned circumstances, the impugned order dated 26.11.2008 passed by the 5th respondent is set aside and the matter is remitted to the 5th respondent for fresh disposal, in accordance with law, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. It is needless to observe that the 5th respondent shall put the petitioner on notice and afford an opportunity of personal hearing before passing any order. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. No costs. _____________________________ (GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA, J) 18-12-2008 Gsn.