IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD TUESDAY, THE FIFTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI ANIL R. DAVE and HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT APPEAL No. 806 of 2008 And Writ Petition No.687 of 2008 WRIT APPEAL No. 806 of 2008 (Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Order dated 27/06/2008 in W.P.No.687 OF 2005 on the file of the High Court) Between: The Superintending Engineer, R&B Circle, Chittoor District. ... APPELLANT AND M/s Balaji Constructions, Dr. M. Akram, S/o. Late N. Abdul Rasheed D.No. 29-17/1, Agarbathi Colony Palamner Post and Mandal, Chittoor District. ...RESPONDENT Counsel for the Appellant: GP FOR ROADS & BUILDINGS Counsel for the Respondent: MR.T.NIRANJAN REDDY WRIT PETITION No.687 of 2005 Between: M/s Balaji Constructions, Dr.No. 15-5-6/C, R.R.N. Colony, Madanapalle, Chittoor District, rep. by its Managing Partner M. Srihari Reddy S/o M.J. P. Narayana Reddy,aged 40 yrs, R/o Madanapalle, Chittoor District. ... PETITIONER AND The Superintending Engineer, R&B Circle, Chittoor, Chittoor District. ...RESPONDENT 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 a Writ of mandamus or any other appropriate Writ, order or Direction declaring the Order passed by the Respondent herein in Proceedings No. 11/D3/2004-05 , dated 12-1-2005 , as arbitrary, illegal, unconstitutional and without jurisdiction Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.T.NIRANJAN REDDY Counsel for the Respondent: GP FOR ROADS & BUILDINGS The Court made the following: Judgment: (Per R. Subhash Reddy, J) Though the writ appeal is ﬁled against the interlocutory order dated 27-06-2008 passed in WVMP No.34 of 2007 in WPMP No.929 of 2005 in W.P.No.687 of 2005, however, at the request of the learned counsel for the parties, the main writ petition itself is taken for consideration and disposed of by this order. 2. The petitioner is a partnership ﬁrm executing civil works on contract basis. In the writ petition, the order dated 12-01-2005 passed by the respondent-Superintending Engineer, is questioned, whereby the petitioner-ﬁrm is blacklisted from the approved list of contractors. The said order is challenged questioning the authority and competency of the respondent-Superintending Engineer and also alleging that the same is passed in violation of the principles of natural justice, as no opportunity was given. 3. Although counter aﬃdavit is ﬁled, it is not disputed that the petitioner was not given any prior notice and opportunity before passing the order for blacklisting. 4. The question whether the order for blacklisting of contractors from the list of contractors, can be passed without any opportunity, is considered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Raghunath Thakur Vs. State of Bihar and others[1], wherein it is held that an order for blacklisting will have serious adverse consequences, and such an order can be passed only after giving notice and opportunity to the aﬀected parties. In the case on hand, there is no dispute that no opportunity was given to the petitioner before passing the order for blacklisting. On this short ground alone, we set aside the said order and allow the writ petition. 5. However, it is open for the respondents to initiate fresh proceedings and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. Further, it is made clear that the issue with regard to competency and jurisdiction of the respondents, as alleged by the petitioner, is also left open. 6. Subject to the above, the writ petition and the writ appeal are disposed of with no order as to costs. _________________ ANIL R. DAVE, CJ. _____________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J. August 05, 2008 Grr/MRR [1] AIR 1989 SC 620