THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.PRAKASH RAO AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR TUESDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF AUGUST, TWO THOUSAND AND NINE WRIT APPEAL No.1251 OF 2002 Between: M/s Ruchika Cables Pvt. Ltd., Rep. By its Manager (Marketing) Jacob Joshua …Petitioner A N D A.P.Power General Corporation, Hyderabad … Respondent. THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.PRAKASH RAO AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT APPEAL No.1251 OF 2002 JUDGMENT ( Per the Hon’ble Sri Justice Sanjay Kumar) The Petitioner in W.P.No. 12734 2002 filed this Writ Appeal assailing the order dated 17-7-2002 dismissing the writ petition. The appellant, a manufacturer of cables, entered into a contract with the Respondent-A.P. Power Generation Corporation, Hyderabad for supply of cables. Owing to the failure of the appellant in adhering to the time schedule for supply of cables, the respondent Corporation issued a show cause notice proposing cancellation of the contract. Thereafter, by the impugned proceeding dated 8-6-2002, the respondent Corporation, having considered the appellant’s reply dated 1-5-2002, cancelled the contract. Questioning the same and apprehending that the respondent Corporation would invoke its Bank Guarantee in RC/21/01 dated 19-11-2001, the appellant filed the writ petition, which was dismissed by the learned Judge by order dated 17-7-2002. In this appeal, by interim order dated 7-8-2002, this Court took note of the fact that the Bank Guarantee furnished by the appellant had already been encashed and restrained the Respondent Corporation from taking any steps with regard to the black listing of the appellant till the disposal of the appeal. The Respondent Corporation was permitted to procure the required material from any other source. In view of the developments aforestated, Sri Pratap Narayan Sanghi, learned counsel for the appellant, fairly submitted that he is not pressing the appeal with regard to the determination of the contract under the impugned order dated 8-6-2002 or the invocation of the Bank Guarantee. The learned counsel sought the leave of this Court to allow his client to pursue such remedies as are available to it in law, so far as these aspects are concerned. He however, expressed an apprehension that the Respondent Corporation may take steps with regard to the blacklisting of his client without following the due procedure laid down by law. Taking note of these submissions, the writ appeal is disposed of allowing the appellant to avail such remedies as are open to it in law, the law of limitation permitting, so far as the determination of the contract and invocation of the Bank Guarantee are concerned and directing the respondent Corporation to put the appellant on notice, give it a due opportunity of hearing and pass necessary orders, in the event it proposes to blacklist the appellant. There shall be no order as to costs. ___________________ Justice B. Prakash Rao __________________ Justice Sanjay Kumar 18th August, 2009. KM THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.PRAKASH RAO AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT APPEAL No.1251 OF 2002 18th August, 2009.