IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH WRIT PETITION No.21320 of 1996 Between: M/S. Ivr Constructions Limited Repd. by Its Managing Director Mr. E. Sudheer Reddy. ..... Petitioner And 1 The State Bank of Hyderabad Gun Foundry Repd. By Its Managing Director. Hyderabad 500 001, 2 The Chief Manager (Premises) State Bank Of Hyderabad Gun Foundry, 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 may be pleased to issue an appropriate writ order or direction declaring the proceedings of the 2nd respondent in PTD/127-IV/740, dated 17.09.1996 and PD/127- IV/776, dated 30.09.1996, as arbitrary, illegal, violative of principles of natural justice, apart from being violative of fundamental rights guaranteed to the petitioner and issue a consequential direction to the respondents not to give eﬀect to the same. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.C.V.MOHAN REDDY Counsel for the Respondents: MR.K.SRINIVASA MURTHY (SC FOR SBH) The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH WRIT PETITION No.21320 of 1996 ORDER: Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. None appears for the respondents. Petitioner questions the letter of the 2nd respondent, dated 17-09-1996, refusing to issue pre-qualiﬁcation application for construction of staﬀ training center at Marredpally, Secunderabad, and also letter, dated 30-09-1996, returning D.D. for a sum of Rs.500/-, since a decision was taken not to entrust any further work to him, as his performance in respect of the work allotted to him previously was not satisfactory. Insofar as letter, dated 17-09-1996, refusing to issue pre- qualiﬁcation application is concerned, this court while admitting the writ petition on 09-10-1996, granted interim order in W.P.M.No.26304 of 1996, directing the respondents to issue pre- qualiﬁcation tender document in respect of the work in question and to consider the same along other tender documents. The only further question that arises for consideration is as to whether the unilateral decision taken by the respondents not to entrust any further work to the petitioner on the alleged ground that his performance in respect of the work allotted to him previously was not satisfactory, without giving any notice and without following due process of law. A counter has been ﬁled stating that the petitioner was entrusted with the work of construction of zonal oﬃce building at Warangal, wherein the quality of the work executed by the petitioner was totally unsatisfactory and he had not taken proper care and the concrete was allowed to be poured without making arrangements of vibraters. Further, there was no proper curing of cellar slab and accordingly several letters, dated 02-05-1991, 13- 09-1991, 20-12-1993, 21-02-1994 and 05-03-1994 were addressed to him with regard to the unsatisfactory work done by him and a letter, dated 18-03-1994 was also addressed to the petitioner to rectify the defects found in the said building. But, in spite of the repeated requests, the petitioner failed to rectify the defects and the cost of rectiﬁcation has been worked out to Rs.55,000/-. Therefore, the respondents have taken a decision not to entrust any further work to the petitioner. It is further stated that the question of issuing show-cause notice or conducting enquiry does not arise in view of the fact that the petitioner in spite of writing several letters failed to rectify the defects found in the said building. I am of the opinion that the execution of the work as per the terms and conditions and to the satisfaction of the Department is diﬀerent from that of the action sought to be taken for black listing the petitioner, as his performance in respect of the work allotted to him previously was not satisfactory. Further, the principles of natural justice have to be followed while black listing a contractor. In the instant case, I am of the opinion that insofar as decision taken by the 2nd respondent vide letter, dated 30-09-1996, not to entrust any further work to the petitioner, which amounts to black listing, without issuing any notice and without giving reasonable opportunity, is illegal and unsustainable. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the letter of the 2nd respondent, dated 30-09-1996 is set aside keeping it open for the respondents to issue notice to the petitioner for black listing him for entrustment of any future works, in accordance with law. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. __________ 27-08-2008 Prv ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{RAGHU}