IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD TUESDAY, THE EIGHTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B.PRAKASH RAO and THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT APPEAL NO : 1356 of 2002 (Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Order dated 29/07/2002 in WP NO : 12660 OF 2002 on the file of the High Court.) Between: D. Sreenivas Rao S/o. Swamy Rao R/o. H.No.2-6-33, T.B.Road, Hanmakonda, Warangal. ..... APPELLANT AND 1 The Government of A.P. The Government of A.P. Department of Panchayat Raj Engineering Rep. by its Secretary, Secretariat buildings. Hyderabad. 2 The Engineer-in-Chief The Engineer-in-Chief, Panchayat Raj, Errum Manzil Colony, Hyderabad. 3 The Superintendent Engineer, The Superintendent Engineer, Panchayat Raj Department, Warangal. 4 The Executive Engineer The Executive Engineer, Panchayat Raj Department, Warangal. .....RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Appellant:MR.P.KESAVA RAO Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ & RURAL DEV. The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.PRAKASH RAO AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT APPEAL NO.1356 OF 2002 J U D G M E N T (Per Sri Justice Sanjay Kumar) The petitioner in Writ Petition No.12660 of 2002 is in appeal. By order dated 29.07.2002, the learned single Judge directed the respondent authorities to submit all the material required by the petitioner, give him an opportunity and then pass final orders with regard to his blacklisting as a Contractor. The learned Judge also left it open to the petitioner to work out his remedies under the agreement with regard to recovery of the alleged excess payment. The learned Judge, however, did not deal with the proceedings dated 28.06.2002, impugned in the writ petition. Hence, this appeal. Sri P.Keshava Rao, learned counsel for the appellant/petitioner contended that the action of the respondent authorities in issuing the show cause notice dated 17.06.2002 proposing the blacklisting of the petitioner Contractor was an eye-wash as a decision had already been taken to blacklist him. Reliance was placed upon the Proceedings dated 28.06.2002 addressed by the Chief Engineer, Panchayat Raj Department, to the Superintendent Engineer, Panchayat Raj, Warangal, wherein the Chief Engineer specifically stated that the Engineer-in-Chief, Panchayat Raj, Hyderabad, had decided to blacklist the petitioner Contractor on the allegation of irregularities and directed the Superintendent Engineer not to enter into an agreement with regard to a particular package of work which had been awarded to the petitioner. In the light of the aforestated proceedings, it appears that the Engineer-in-Chief, Panchayat Raj, being at the helm of affairs in the Panchayat Raj Department, had already taken a decision with regard to the blacklisting of the petitioner Contractor. Be that as it may, the direction to deny the petitioner the work which was already awarded to him, even before the conclusion of the blacklisting proceedings indicates the closed mind of the authorities. The same offends the principles of fair play in action and the principles of natural justice; and cannot be sustained. The writ appeal is therefore allowed declaring the action of the 2n d respondent in seeking to interdict the Superintendent Engineer, Panchayat Raj Department, Warangal, from entering into an agreement on the basis of the Proceedings dated 28.06.2002 as illegal and unsustainable. The proceedings dated 28.06.2002 are accordingly set aside. There shall be no order as to costs. ---------------------------- B.PRAKASH RAO,J -------------------------- SANJAY KUMAR,J 8TH SEPTEMBER, 2009 PGS / VGSR