IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. CHANDRAIAH WRIT PETTION No.3189 OF 2010 Between: Kolusu Anjaneyulu ..... Petitioner And 1. The Municipal Commissioner, Sattenapalli Municipality, Sattenapalli, Guntur District & another …Respondents The Court made the following: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. CHANDRAIAH WRIT PETTION No. 3189 OF 2010 ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed by the petitioner seeking for issuance of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the first respondent in issuing the impugned notice vide Roc.No.2057/2008/E1, dated 03.10.2009, for cancellation of contract of the petitioner i.e., “construction of Major CC Drain from R.Sambasivarao site to Burial Grounds in 10th ward, Sattenapalli”, without giving an opportunity of personal appearance and hearing and without considering the photos submitted to him in proof of work, as illegal, arbitrary and against the principles of natural justice and set aside the same and consequently direct the respondents to consider the representation of the petitioner on 13.10.2009 forthwith. 2. The case of the petitioner is that he is a Municipal Contractor for the last ten years. He participated in several municipal works and is receiving the work order from the Municipal Commissioner, Sattenapalli, vide order Roc.No.2057/2008/E1, dated 03.10.2009. The name of the work is “Construction of Major CC Drain from R.Sambasivarao site to Burial Grounds in 10th ward, Sattenapalli”. The same was checked by the authorities and sanctioned the above work to him. He executed an agreement of the said work on the revenue stamp paper, dated 23.03.2009. After execution of an agreement, he started his work and the authorities also checked the work from time to time and given proper instructions. While so, he received a notice, dated 21.05.2009, from the Municipal Commissioner Office, Sattenapalli, for blaming him for not starting the allotted work on the ground that he has not completed 80% of work. Further, he received a notice Roc.No.2057/2008/E1, dated 12.08.2009, from the Municipal Commissioner Office, Sattenapalli, about not starting the allotted work. Immediately, he sent the explanation about the work to the authorities. Thereafter, the second respondent issued the impugned notice canceling the contract for not starting the allotted work and not completing his work within the prescribed time. 3. Resisting the same, the petitioner seems to have submitted the representation, but the authorities have not passed any order on the said representation. 4. Admittedly, the case of the petitioner is that he is a Municipal Contractor and he has to execute certain works and one of such work was allotted to the petitioner. On the ground that the said work was not executed in time, the said work was cancelled. Denying the same, the petitioner made the representation. The said representation is pending before the authorities and no orders may be passed. Under these circumstances, the Writ Petition may be disposed of with the following direction. 5. The respondents are directed to pass appropriate orders on the representation stated to have been made by the petitioner on 13.10.2009 within a period of two (2) weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the order and communicate the same to the petitioner. 6. With the above direction, the Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly. There shall be no order as to costs. _________________ G. CHANDRAIAH, J Date: 23rd December, 2010 KL HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. CHANDRAIAH WRIT PETTION No.3189 OF 2010 December 23, 2010. KL