HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.16107 of 2010 ORDER: The Chief Mechanical Engineer, Visakhapatnam Port Trust, the 1st respondent, has issued a tender notice, dated 10-03-2009, to select an agency for execution of the work of Installation of Electrical Equipment etc. The petitioner and several others submitted the tenders. On scrutiny of the tender documents, the 1st respondent noticed that the figures in the experience certificate, filed by the petitioner, as to the value of the work were tampered. A show cause notice was issued by the respondents on 22-07-2009, requiring the petitioner to explain as to why necessary action be not taken against it. The petitioner submitted its explanation on 21-08-2009. Through order, dated 29-04-2010, the 1st respondent disqualified the petitioner from participating in any tenders floated by them. The same is challenged in this writ petition. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents. 3. The allegation against the petitioner, as mentioned in the show cause notice, was that an experience certificate in relation to the work said to have been executed by the petitioner in M/s.Hindustan Aeronautics Limited, Sunabeda, was filed depicting the value of the work as Rs.11,11,948/-, but on verification, it emerged that the value of the work is only Rs.1,11,948/-. The petitioner submitted its explanation stating that it did not tamper the experience certificate, and that the rival tenderer or officials of the 1st respondent may have done it. 4. In case, the 1st respondent was not satisfied with the explanation offered by the petitioner, he ought to have passed a reasoned order, indicating the basis for the conclusions arrived at by him. However, a one-line order, straightaway imposing ban upon the petitioner from participating the future tenders, is passed. The same cannot be sustained in law. The rights of the petitioner cannot be taken away in such a way. 5. Hence, the Writ Petition is allowed and the impugned order, dated 29-04-2010, is set aside. However, it is left open to the 1st respondent to pass fresh orders, taking into account the allegations made against the petitioner and the explanation submitted by it. There shall be no order as to costs. ____________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY, J March 07, 2011. Note: Issue CC in one week. B/O. KTL