THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.27226 of 2008 ORDER: The petitioner was selected as Agency to supply manpower, by the first respondent, and the same was communicated through proceedings, dated 15.09.2008, by the District Employment Officer, District Employment Exchange, Srikakulam. Under the contract, the petitioner was to supply 28 Sweepers and 3 Packers to work at Rajiv Gandhi Institute of Medical Sciences, Srikakulam. Even before the supply of manpower commenced, the District Collector, in his capacity as Chairman of the Outsourcing Committee, issued proceedings, dated 29.11.2008, directing deletion of the petitioner from the list of approved agencies, for supply of manpower. The said proceedings are challenged in this Writ Petition. The petitioner contends that, no show cause notice was issued to it and the reasons mentioned in the impugned proceedings are totally untenable. The first respondent filed a counter-affidavit. He reiterated the grounds mentioned in the impugned proceedings. He did not dispute that the petitioner was not put on notice, before the impugned order was passed. Reference is made to a report, dated 06.11.2008, submitted by the Administrative Officer of the Institution. Heard Sri T.Niranjan Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, and learned Government Pleader for Medical and Health. The petitioner responded to a notification, dated 23.07.2008, and on examination of its eligibility, the first respondent selected the petitioner. Not even for one month, the employees were outsourced from the petitioner, and the first respondent had issued the impugned proceedings. This is said to have been preceded by an enquiry by the Administrative Officer. Neither during the course of enquiry, nor before the impugned order was passed, the petitioner was issued notice. On this short ground, the impugned proceedings are liable to be set aside. From a perusal of the impugned proceedings, it becomes clear that some lame excuses were invented, to keep the petitioner outside the purview of the outsourcing. At one stage, this Court had specifically directed the first respondent to inform this Court, as to who is being entrusted with the work of supply of manpower. His counter- affidavit is blissfully silent, on this aspect. The allegation made by the petitioner, that the impugned proceedings are issued only with a view to help certain other agencies, yielding to political pressures; gains credence. This Court takes exception to the method adopted by the first respondent. The Writ Petition is accordingly allowed, and the impugned proceedings are set aside. It is directed that the respondents shall avail the outsourcing from the petitioner, in terms of the contract, and in case any defects are noticed vis-à-vis the petitioner, it shall be open to them to take necessary action, strictly in accordance with law. It is also directed that the authority shall abide by the relevant Rules and Regulations, including those, contained in G.O.Rt.No.4459, dated 27.12.2006. There shall be no order as to costs. ______________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY,J Dated:06.03.2009 GJ