THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY W.P.No.18254 of 2007 ORDER: The 1st respondent issued a tender notice, dated 14.04.2007, inviting tenders for lifting of scrap material, after dismantling an old Government Hospital at Secunderabad. The contract enables the successful bidder to take away the material, such as, window frames, door frames, iron windows, iron bars, water tanks scrap etc. As many as 34 individuals and agencies responded. The petitioner was declared as the highest bidder for a sum of Rs.27,51,000/-, in the auction held, on 23.04.2007. After the petitioner remitted the amount, proceedings were issued on 30.04.2007, enabling him to lift the material within 40 days from the date of proceedings. It is stated that the petitioner has dismantled the building to an extent of 70%. Petitioner was required by the 1st respondent, through letter, dated 01.05.2007, to deposit a further amount of Rs.12.5 lakhs. Even this was deposited by him. The 1st respondent addressed a letter, dated 11.05.2007, through which, the petitioner was required to stop the process of lifting the material. This was on the basis of the paper clippings in Telugu News daily. The 1st respondent is said to have been issued instructions at the instance of the 3rd respondent. The petitioner feels aggrieved by the said letter. On behalf of the respondents, a counter-affidavit is filed. The fact that the contract was awarded in favour of the petitioner and that he has also deposited a further sum of Rs.12,50,000/-, in addition to the bid amount, is admitted. It is, however, stated that, since reports have come to the effect that the material was under value, impugned notice is said to have issued. Heard Sri Vedula Venkataramana, learned counsel for the petitioner, and learned Government Pleader for Medical and Health. It is just unimaginable, as to how the 1st respondent could have issued the impugned notice. It is not a case where any defect, or non-compliance, on the part of the petitioner, with the terms of the contract, was pointed out. From a perusal of the notice, it emerges that the sole basis for it, was, an item of news in Telugu Daily. In these days of active journalism, it is difficult to imagine that, views would not be expressed, pointing out defects in the decisions taken by the authorities at various levels. One just cannot expect uniformity of opinions on any particular issue. The value of the scrap or the material was assessed by the technical agency. It is only after such assessment, that tenders were invited, duly indicating the upset bid. It is not a case where the petitioner was the only participant, or that any collusion was alleged. As many as 34 persons participated and the petitioner emerged as the highest bidder. Further, when the 1st respondent required the petitioner to deposit a further amount, he did so, without any demur, or may be, to avoid further complications in the matter. Still the 1st respondent was not satisfied. In case there existed any basis, legal or factual, for the 1st respondent to terminate the contract of the petitioner, it was always open to him to do so by issuing suitable notice and by pointing out the defect or violation. If the report in the newspaper is to constitute the basis to take such drastic actions, one just cannot imagine the functioning of the Government or institution. The impugned notice cannot be sustained in law. Hence, the Writ Petition is allowed and the impugned notice is set aside. There shall be no order as to costs. ______________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY, J Dated:09.11.2009 GJ