IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF APRIL, TWO THOUSAND TEN PRESENT: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.2856 of 2010 Between: S.V. Ramana Reddy … Petitioner And The Chief Engineer, Transmission, A.P., Transco, Vidyuth Soudha, Hyderabad & another. … Respondents Counsel for the petitioner: Sri B. Sarvabhoma Reddy for Sri B. Naga Jaya Chandra Reddy Counsel for the respondents: Sri S. V. Ramana for Sri O.Manohar Reddy SC for A.P. Transco This Court made the following: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.2856 of 2010 ORDER:- At the interlocutory stage, the writ petition is taken up for hearing and disposal with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties. This writ petition is filed for a Mandamus to declare the termination of contract works pertaining to (1) O&M 132 KV SS, Gudur, (2) CBD gang at 400 KV SS, Nannur and (3) CBD gang at Kurnool and blacklisting the petitioner’s firm as illegal and arbitrary. The petitioner was a sub-station maintenance contractor, who was entrusted with the abovementioned three works. Mainly on the allegation that he failed to pay minimum wages to the contract labour, a show cause notice was issued. The petitioner claimed to have submitted his explanation on 28.04.2009. However, without reference to the said explanation, respondent No.2 issued letter dated 30.06.2009, wherein while terminating the abovementioned three works with effect from 01.07.2009, blacklisted the petitioner for a period of two years. This action is challenged in this writ petition. At the hearing, the learned counsel for the petitioner stated that since the contracts were already terminated, the petitioner is not pressing for the relief claimed in respect of termination of the contracts. The learned counsel, however, submitted that the part of the order by which the petitioner is blacklisted cannot be sustained because respondent No.2 failed to consider the various reasons assigned by the petitioner in his explanation dated 28.04.2009. No counter affidavit is filed. The learned Standing counsel for the respondents sought to sustain the impugned order by stating that the petitioner, who was called upon to perform all the statutory obligations on or before 13.03.2009, failed to do so and therefore respondent No.2 has rightly blacklisted him. A perusal of the impugned order shows that no reference is made to the petitioner’s explanation said to have submitted on 28.04.2009. Even the said order does not contain any reasons whatsoever for taking the extreme action of blacklisting the petitioner. As held by the Supreme Court in Erusian Equipment and Chemicals Limited vs. State of West Bengal[1], the order of blacklisting, which has serious adverse consequences, cannot be passed without a prior notice. Therefore, the superior courts insist that before taking such an adverse action, the authorities shall follow principles of natural justice and conform to fair procedure. As the impugned order is shorn of any reasons whatsoever, the same cannot be sustained in law. The writ petition is partly allowed to the extent of setting aside the impugned order blacklisting the petitioner. This order, however, does not preclude respondent No.2 from initiating fresh action in accordance with law. As a sequel to disposal of the writ petition in the manner indicated above, WPMP.No.3749 of 2010 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. _____________________________ C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Date: 27.04.2010 ES [1] (1975) 1 SCC 70