f! APHC010381522024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY,THE TWENTIETH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI WRIT PETITION NO: 19531 OF 2024 Between: Sree Lakshmi Narayana Vadde Labour Contract Cooperative Society (Regd.No.1464) Limited Vayalavaddupalle H/o.Rayavaram Post T.Sundepalle Mandal, Rayachoty Annamayya District, AP Rep.by its President C.Venkata Ramana S/o.C.Venkataiah Aged 64 years ...PETITIONER AND 1. The Executive Officer, Tirumala Tirupathi Devasthanam, Chittoor District, AP 2. The Superintending Engineer-Ill, Tirumala Tirupathi Devasthanam, Tirupati, Tirupati District, AP 3. The Audit Officer, Engineering Bills, Tirumala Tirupathi Devasthanam Tirupathi, Tirupathi District, AP ...Respondent(S): Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of a writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents particularly the 2"^^ respondent passing impugned proceedings vide TTD/64021 (31)/36/2023- EE ill SEC dt.28-02-2024 is illegal, arbitrary, contrary to law. lA NO: 1 OF 2024 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the operation of the proceedings vide TTD/64021 (31 )/36/2023-EE III SEC dt.28-02-2024 issued by the 2"'^ respondent pending disposal of the above writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI D. KCDANDARAMI REDDY Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 to 3: SRI V. R. N. PRASHANTH, SC FORTTD The Court made the following: ORDER APHC010381522024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) ■ [3331] 0 r FRIDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI WRIT PETITION NO: 19531/2024 Between: Sree Lakshmi Narayana Vadde Labour Contract Cooperative ...PETITIONER Society AND The Executive Officer and Others ...RESPONDENT{S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1.D KODANDARAMI REDDY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1.VR N PRASHANTH The Court made the following: :: ORDER :: Impugning the proceedings issued by respondent No.2 Roc.No.T.T.D-64021(31)/36/2023-EE III SEC Comp No: 1996338, 28.02.2024 (Ex.P1), the above writ petition has been filed. vide dated 2. Heard learned counsel appearing on either side. 3. The petitioner, a registered society, entered into an agreement with respondent No.2 on 30.01.2023, for construction of crash barriers. Stabilization works for side slops and other ancillary works to the widening SRS,J W.P.No.19531 of 2024 portion of the road from Alipiri to Cherlopalle, in pursuance of the tender dated 12.07.2022, being the lowest bidder. The petitioner deposited Rs.10,00,000/- as EMD and completed the work to some extent. However, could not complete the work due to ill-health. The petitioner submitted a representation dated 22.01.2024, seeking some more time. Without considering the representation made by the petitioner, by the proceedings impugned, the contract of the petitioner was determined; the deposited amount was forfeited and further suspended the petitioner from participating in tenders for three years. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that before suspending the petitioner from participating in the tender, the respondent authorities failed to issue a notice. Sri Sai Manoj, learned counsel, on the other hand, would contend that three months was granted to complete the work as per Clause 4.24.1 of the General Conditions of the Contract. However, the petitioner could complete the work, and hence, five notices were issued. Thereafter, again at the request of the petitioner, the agreement to complete the work extended by 30.11.2023, subject to payment of a fine. The petitioner paid the fine amount. However, the petitioner could not take up the work. Notice dated 10.01.2024, was issued and thereafter, the contract was determined by the proceedings impugned. Learned counsel would also submit that since the petitioner failed to complete the work, the respondent authorities not only determined the contract, but also suspended the petitioner from participating in the tender for three years and forfeited the amount deposited as per Clause 60 of Andhra Pradesh Standard Specifications. Thus, as seen from the pleadings, there is no dispute regarding the agreement entered into by the petitioner with respondent No.2 on 30.01.2023, regarding the aforementioned work. As per the agreement, three months 5. not was 6. were SRS,J W.P.No.19531 of 2024 granted to complete the work. The progress of the work was also mentioned in the agreement, i.e. the contractor has to complete 33% of the work by the end of month, 66% by the end of 2^^^ month and 100% by the end of O'"' month. A notice dated 20.02.2023 was issued. However, the petitioner failed to submit any explanation. Thereafter, notices dated 07.04.2023, 27.06.2023 & 04.09.2023 were issued to the petitioner. The petitioner failed to submit an explanation to any one of the notices. ,.w However, as seen from the proceedings dated 17.10.2023, the time was extended to complete the work by 30.11.2023 subject to payment of fine of Rs.25,000/-. Despite the extension of time, the petitioner could not complete the work. Hence, another notice dated 10.01.2024 was issued. Thereafter, the proceedings impugned were issued on 28.02.2024. 7. Thus, in the facts and circumstances of the case, given the failure of the petitioner to complete the work, the agreement was determined, and this Court does not find any irregularities in determining the agreement. 8. In respect of forfeited amount. Clause 60(a) of the Andhra Pradesh Standard Specifications prescribes the procedure. A perusal of the aforementioned notices, the authority invoked Clause 60 of the Andhra Pradesh Standard Specifications. Despite the same, the petitioner failed to complete the work and hence, this Court does not find any irregularities in forfeiting the deposited amount by the contractor. 9. In respect of Clause No.4 of the proceedings impugned, before suspending the petitioner from participating in the tender for three years, no notice was issued to the petitioner, calling for explanation. Suspending/black listing the contractor has serious consequences. 10. Page 4 of 6 SRS,J W.P.No.19531 of 2024 11. In Erusian Equipment and Chemicals v. State of West Bengal', at para No.20, the Hon’ble Apex Court observed as follows; '20. Blacklisting has the effect of preventing a person from the privilege and advantage of entering into lawful relationship with Government for purposes of gains. The fact that a disability is created by the order of blacklisting indicates that the relevant authority have an objective satisfaction. Fundamentals of fair play require that the person concerned should be given an opportunity to represent his case before he is put on the blacklist.” the is to 12. In Blue Dremz Advertising Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. V. Kolkata Municipal Corp. & Ors^ the Hon’ble Apex Court observed as follows; 1. In case there exists a genuine dispute between the parties based the terms of the contract, blacklisting as a penalty cannot be imposed. 2. The penalty of blacklisting may only be imposed when it is necessary to safeguard the public interest from irresponsible or dishonest contractors, and 3. The Corporation being a statutory body, have a higher threshold to satisfy before passing such blacklisting order and therefore, the measures undertaken by it should be reasonable.” In UMC Technologies (P) Ltd. v. Food Corporation of India^ the Hon ble Apex Court, at para No. 19, observed as follows; “19. In light of the above decisions, it is clear that a prior show-cause notice granting a reasonable opportunity of being heard is an essential element of all administrative decision-making and particularly so in decisions pertaining to blacklisting which entail grave consequences for the entity being blacklisted. In these cases, furnishing of a valid show- on 13. (1975) 1 see 75 ^2024 INSe 589 ^(2021) 2 see 551 SRS.J W.P.No.19531 of 2024 cause notice is critical and a failure to do so would be fatal to any order of blacklisting pursuant thereto.” Thus, as seen from the material available on record, no notice was issued to the petitioner before suspending the petitioner from participating in the tender for three years. Without giving opportunity blacklisting the petitioner is not only illegal but also arbitrary and violative of principles of natural justice. Given the authoritative pronouncements referred to supra, coupled with failure of the respondent authorities to issue the prior notice, clause No.4 in the proceedings impugned (black listing the petitioner) is hereby set aside. In respect of Clauses 1 to 3 in the proceedings impugned, this Court does not find any irregularities. With the above observation, the Writ Petition is allowed in part. No order 14. 15. 16. as to costs. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. Sd/- K TATA RAO DEPUTY REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, Executive Officer, Tirumala Tirupathi Devasthanam, Chittoor 1. The District, AP 2. The Superintending Engineer-Ill, Tirumala Tirupathi Devasthanam, Tirupati, Tirupati District, AP 3. The Audit Officer, Engineering Bills, Tirumala Tirupathi Devasthanam Tirupathi, Tirupathi District, AP CC to Sri D Kodandarami Reddy, Advocate [OPUC] 5. One CC to Sri V. R. N. Prashanth, SC for TTD [OPUC] ne 6. Three CD Copies. ssb HIGH COURT DATED:20/06/2025 ORDER WP No.19531 of 2024 « 0 2 JUL 2025 )rr ^>sCyfront SectiopX^ .«o O PARTLY ALLOWING THE W.P. WITHOUT COSTS