IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TWENTY NINTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION NO : 25795 of 2008 Between: Sri Gajula Venu S/o. Bala Mallaiah R/o. H.No. 6-8-36, Subashnagar Street, Sircilla Town & Mandal, Karimnagar District, A.P. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Commissioner & Director of Municipal Administration A.P. State Government, Hyderabad. 2 The Commissioner, Municipal Council of Sircilla, Sircilla Town & Mandal, Karimnagar District, A.P. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue an appropriate writ order or directions more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the Respondents in issuing resolution vide item No. 193 in File N. E 1/349/2007-08 dt. 31-3-2008 is illegal, arbitrary and against the Principles of the natural justice and consequently set aside the resolution vide item No. 193 in File No. E 1/349/2007-08 dt. 31-3- 2008 of putting the petitioner in black listing and pass such other order or orders. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.BETHI.VENKATESWARLU Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR MUNCIPAL ADMN. & URBAN DEV. The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION No : 25795 of 2008 O R D E R : The writ petitioner is a registered Civil Contractor, who has been doing civil contract works with the respondents. He was awarded two works by the 2nd respondent vide agreement dated 26.06.2007 and 29.06.2007 which were required to be completed within two months. Alleging that the petitioner failed to complete the said works within the time agreed upon, the 2nd respondent- Municipality in the extraordinary meeting held on 28.03.2008 passed a unanimous resolution canceling the works awarded to the petitioner and also blacklisting him and forfeiting the deposits. Aggrieved by the said action, the present writ petition is filed. Heard both sides and perused the counter affidavit of the respondents as well as the material on record. A perusal of the impugned resolution itself shows that no opportunity was given to the petitioner at any point of time before blacklisting him thereby prohibiting him from taking up any works in future. Even in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents, the said fact could not be disputed. In the circumstances, the impugned action of the respondents to the extent of blacklisting the petitioner, being in violation of the principles of natural justice is liable to be declared as arbitrary and illegal. Accordingly, the impugned resolution dated 31.03.2008 is set aside to the extent of blacklisting the petitioner. However, this shall not preclude the respondents to take appropriate action following due process of law. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. No costs. ______________ G. ROHINI, J Dated: 29-06-2009 Note: Issue C.C. in 3 days. B/o KLP