HON'BLE SRI ANIL R. DAVE, THE CHIEF JUSTICE and HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT APPEAL No. 1256 OF 2009 Dated: 27-10-2009 Between: The Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep., by Principal Secretary, R & B, Secretariat, Hyderabad and two others ... APPELLANTS AND K. Ajay Kumar Ghosh ... RESPONDENT THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI ANIL R. DAVE AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT APPEAL No. 1256 OF 2009 JUDGEMENT: (per Sri C.V. Nagarjuna Reddy, J) This appeal is filed against order dated 07-09-2009 passed by the learned single Judge in WVMP No. 1888 of 2009 in Writ Petition No. 11158 of 2009, whereby the learned single Judge made the interim order granted in favour of the respondent – writ petitioner absolute. Since the writ petition is pending, we refrain from expressing our views on merits. It will suffice to state for the purpose of disposal of this appeal that prima facie the action of the appellants in rejecting the respondent’s tender on the premise that he stood disqualified appears to be incorrect. A perusal of the record shows that the appellants alleged that in connection with the work pertaining to special repairs to Inkollu-Muppavaram road, the respondent had produced a fake experience certificate and a show cause notice calling upon him to explain as to why the respondent should not be blacklisted was issued on 11-05-2009. It is an admitted fact that so far, no order has been passed blacklisting the respondent. Therefore, in our view, the learned single Judge has not committed any error in staying all further proceedings in pursuance of a fresh tender notification issued consequent on the rejection of the respondent’s tender. Though the learned Government Pleader for Roads and Buildings placed reliance on Clause 3.4 of the tender conditions, in our prima facie view, the said clause may not enable the appellants to disqualify the respondent on the ground that he furnished false/fabricated documents in a different work with reference to which no final order has been passed giving a specific finding thereon. At any rate, these aspects are required to be adjudicated by the learned single Judge in the writ petition. Therefore, we do not find any reason to interfere with the order passed by the learned single Judge, which is impugned in this writ petition. The learned Government Pleader submitted that the matter pertains to execution of a roadwork and, that therefore, there is urgency. Having regard to the urgency involved in the case, we permit the learned Government Pleader to make a necessary application before the learned single Judge to take up the writ petition itself at an early date. We are sure that if such an application is made, the learned single Judge will accept the request of the learned Government Pleader and dispose of the writ petition as early as possible. Subject to the above observation, the writ appeal is dismissed. As a sequel to dismissal of the appeal, WAMP No. 2622 of 2009, filed by the appellants for interim relief, is dismissed. ANIL R. DAVE, CJ C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 27-10-2009 ks Note: Furnish copy within three days. B/o ks