THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.32866 of 2010 Date: 28.12.2010 Between: M/s. Amma Electricals, Anantapur ..... Petitioner AND The Chairman & Managing Director, Hyderabad and another .....Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri S.D. Gowd Counsel for Respondents: Sri O. Manohar Reddy, standing counsel for AP TRANSCO The Court made the following: ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a Mandamus to set aside the proceedings dated 25.11.2010 of respondent No.2. The petitioner is an electrical contractor. On the allegation that it indulged in corrupt activities along with the Assistant Engineer of the Andhra Pradesh Central Power Distribution Company Limited, Rayadurg, Anantapur District, the Anti Corruption Bureau (ACB) has laid a trap against them, following which Crime No.6/RCT-ATP/2010 of ACB, Anantapur, was registered against the petitioner and the said Assistant Engineer for the offences under Sections 7, 12, 13 (1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Simultaneously, respondent No.2 has issued the impugned show- cause notice, whereby he has called upon the petitioner to show- cause as to why it shall not be black listed. At the hearing, Sri S.D. Gowd, the learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the impugned show-cause notice was issued by respondent No.2 at the instance of respondent No.1 and that respondent No.2, being subordinate to respondent No.1, has no option except to black list the petitioner. The learned counsel, therefore, submitted that the impugned show-cause notice is a mere formality. In my opinion, though the petitioner’s apprehension may have some justification, as the proceedings are only at the show-cause notice stage, I do not feel inclined to interfere with the said notice. Respondent No.2, being an authority, who is vested with the power to black list the contractors, is expected to act independently without being guided by any directions issued by any authority superior to him. To allay the apprehension of the petitioner that respondent No.2 will be guided by the direction of respondent No.1, respondent No.2 is directed to exercise its powers without being influenced by the alleged direction given by respondent No.1 and strictly in accordance with the material on record and after properly considering the explanation that may be submitted by the petitioner. If the petitioner feels aggrieved by the order that may be passed by respondent No.2, it shall be free to avail its legal remedies. Subject to the above direction, the Writ Petition is disposed of. As a sequel to disposal of the writ petition, W.P.M.P.No.41756 of 2010 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. ________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 28th December, 2010 GHN