IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY Writ Petition No.13486 of 2004 Between: S.R.Communication Systems, rep. Its Partner, Sri Vallabhaneni Vekat Ram, C-12, Electronic Complex, Kushaiguda, Hyderabad-62. ..... PETITIONER AND 1.The Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep. By its Principal Secretary, Municipal Admn. and Urban Development Dept., Secretariat, Hyderabad and another. .....RESPONDENTS ORDER: There is no representation on behalf of the petitioner. Heard Smt.G.Jyothi Kiran, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the second respondent-Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad. In this Writ Petition, the petitioner-firm has questioned the proceedings issued by the first respondent in Memo No.13946/E1/2003-15, dated 16-07-2004, instructing the second respondent-Commissioner of Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad to black list the petitioner-firm and two other firms by following the due procedure, and consequential Order, dated 24-07-2004, passed by the second respondent-Commissioner vide Proceedings No. CE/MCH/TA1/K1/2004-711, black listing those three firms. In the year 2000, the second respondent-Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad, issued tender Notification No.1/EE/Electrical/MCH/00-01/146, dated 27th April, 2000, inviting tenders for procurement of electronic timers to streetlights. Pursuant to the same, eight tenderers have offered their rates and after evaluation thereof, the second respondent selected three firms and sought approval from the first respondent. The proposal sent by the second respondent was approved by the first respondent vide G.O.Ms.No.468, dated 14-09-2000, and the second respondent was permitted to procure timers from the petitioner-firm and three other firms. After installation of timers by the petitioner-firm and the other firms, a news item was published in the newspaper alleging that the petitioner-firm and other firms have allegedly indulged in certain irregularities to procure the tenders for supply of timers. The first respondent entrusted the matter to the Director General (Vigilance & Enforcement) Department and the Principal Secretary to Government, G.A.D., to conduct a detailed enquiry and submit a report. It appears that the said authority has submitted a report vide report No.966/VC.B1/2003-5, dated 26-03-2004, suggesting several remedial measures against the erring Officials and also against the firms. Based on the same, the first respondent-Government issued Proceedings, dated 16-07-2004, directing the second respondent to black list the petitioner-firm and two other similarly placed firms by following the due procedure and in view of the same, the second respondent has issued consequential Proceedings, dated 24-07-2004, black listing the petitioner-firm for award of any contracts. In this Writ Petition, apart from questioning the impugned order passed by the second respondent on several grounds, it is the specific case of the petitioner-firm that the same is not preceded by any show-cause notice and opportunity. At the time of admission, this Court has granted interim suspension of Order, dated 24-07-2007, passed by the second respondent. Although the Writ Petition is of 2004, there is no counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the second respondent-Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad. The first respondent-Government has filed a counter- affidavit denying the allegations made by the petitioner-firm. It is stated therein that in view of the findings recorded by the Vigilance Commission in its report, dated 26-03-2004, the first respondent issued Memo, dated 16-07-2004, directing the second respondent-Corporation to pass appropriate orders after following the procedure. It is well settled legal position that any order, which is having civil consequences, cannot be passed without conducting summary enquiry and without giving prior notice and opportunity to the person affected. The specific allegation of the petitioner, that he was not given any notice and opportunity before the order of blacklisting was passed, is not denied by the second respondent-Commissioner. While I do not find any illegality in the proceedings issued by the first respondent, based on the findings recorded in the Enquiry report, but at the same time, I feel that the second respondent ought to have passed order, dated 24-07-2004, black listing the petitioner-firm, after duly notifying it. On the aforesaid short ground, the impugned order passed by the second respondent has to be set aside. For the aforesaid reasons, Order, dated 24-07-2004, passed by the second respondent-Commissioner vide Proceedings No. CE/MCH/TA1/K1/2004-711 is hereby set aside. However, it is made clear that this order will not preclude the respondents from issuing fresh notice and passing appropriate orders thereon against the petitioner- firm. The Writ Petition is allowed in part to the extent indicated above. No orders as to costs. ___________________ (R.SUBHASH REDDY, J) 11th August, 2009 lur