IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE THIRD DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA WRIT PETITION No.4218 of 2009 Between: P.R.S.S.S.Thammayya Naidu S/o.Atchuta Thammayya Naidu Door No.42-9-37, Kothapeta, Rajahmundry, East Godavari District ..... PETITIONER AND The Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Rajahmundry, East Godavari 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 order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the order of the respondent in Roc.No.3604/2006/F1 dated 19.12.2008 as highly illegal, arbitrary, unjust, violation of principles of natural justice and discriminatory and set a side the same and consequently direct the respondent to pay the bills to the petitioner towards cost of Rock Lime supplied under the supply order dated 1.4.2008. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.BADANA BHASKARA RAO Counsel for the Respondent: MR.A.VISHNU VARDHAN REDDY The Court made the following: THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA WRIT PETITION No.4218 of 2009 ORDER: According to the petitioner, pursuant to a notification dated 01.02.2008 issued by the respondent Corporation, inviting tenders for supply of 8,00,000 kgs. of rock lime, he submitted tender forms and, accepting the same, he was issued with a supply order by the respondent. While so, alleging that he did not supply the material as agreed and supplied only 1,17,880 kgs. and as such the Corporation had to call for tenders again for supply of the remaining material and had to buy the material at a higher rate than the one quoted by petitioner and thereby the Corporation incurred loss to a tune of Rs.1,59,020/-, the respondent issued the impugned proceedings dated 19.12.2008, asking the petitioner to pay the said amount of Rs.1,59,020/- within seven days from the date of receipt of the said proceedings. Questioning the same, the present writ petition is filed by the petitioner contending that the impugned proceedings were issued without giving him any notice and without affording him an opportunity to submit his explanation. His further grievance is that pursuant to the impugned proceedings, he submitted a representation to the respondent on 22.12.2008, but the same is not considered. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent. A perusal of the impugned proceedings indicates that no prior notice was issued to the petitioner before determining the amount, which he was required to pay. Principles of natural justice require that, when an order affecting the rights of a party is passed, notice calling upon the explanation of that party should be given and an opportunity of hearing should be provided. In the instant case, no notice whatsoever was issued to the petitioner calling upon him to submit his explanation and no opportunity of hearing was provided to him before issuing the impugned proceedings. Since the impugned proceedings have been issued in violation of the principles of natural justice, they are liable to be set aside. However, since it is the grievance of the petitioner that the impugned proceedings were not preceded by a show-cause notice, it Is directed that the impugned proceedings shall be treated as a show- cause notice issued to the petitioner calling upon him to submit his explanation, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. If any such explanation is submitted by the petitioner, the respondent shall consider the same and pass appropriate speaking orders in accordance with law. Till such time, the respondent is directed not to effect any recovery from the petitioner. With the above directions, the writ petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. _________________ JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA 3rd March, 2009 IBL