APHC010123082024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3332] SATURDAY,THE THIRTY FIRST DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI WRIT PETITION NO: 6286/2024 Between: 1. SRI VSR CONSTRUCTIONS, D.NO. 29/178-32-D2-2, SBI COLONY, NANDYAL, NANDYAL DISTRICT. REP.BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER VANGALA SATYANARAYANA REDDY, S/O. V.C. MADDILETI REDDY. 2. . VANGALA SATYANARAYANA REDDY,, S/O. V.C. MADDILETI REDDY, AGED 62 YEARS, OCC. CONTRACTOR, R/O. PLOT NO. 315, ROYAL HOMES, OPP. SRBC ROAD, NANDYAL, NANDYAL DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER(S) AND 1. THE STATE OF AP, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, WATER RESOURCES (IRRIGATION AND CAD) DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, THULLUR MANDAL, AMARAVATI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2. THE ENGINEERINCHIEF, IRRIGATION DEPARTMENT, VIJAYAWADA, AP. 3. THE CHIEF ENGINEER, DWRO, WATER RESOURCES DEPARTMENT, KURNOOL, KURNOOL DISTRICT. 4. SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, WRD, IRRIGATION CIRCLE, KURNOOL, KURNOOL DISTRICT. 2 5. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, WATER RESOURCES DEPARTMENT, KCC DIVISION, NANDYAL, NANDYAL DISTRICT. 6. THE COMMISSIONER OF TENDERS COT, GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH, VIJAYAWADA. 7. ANDHRA PRADESH TECHNOLOGY SERVICES LTD, (APTS) 3RD FLOOR, R8BB BUILDING, MG ROAD, LABBIPET, VIJAYAWADA, REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR. ...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 or order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of MANDAMUS declaring the action of the 4th respondent in passing orders vide Lr.No. SE/IC/KNL/TW/JTO-2/F- Mydukur-Works/116-M, dated 07-03-2024 wherein suspension/ Blacklisting of the Petitioners for participation of tenders for a period of 3 years, forfeiting deposit amount to the 4th Respondent without issuing any notice, without giving any opportunity of hearing, without following due process of law and without considering the Petitioners representations for closure of contract due to no allocation of budget passing and without assigning proper reasons as illegal, irrational, irregular, arbitrary and against the principles of natural justice and unconstitutional violative of article 14, 19(l)(g) and 21 of constitution of India and consequently set aside the Orders of the 4th Respondent in Lr.No. SE/IC/KNL/TW/JTO-2/F-Mydukur-Works/116 M, dated 07-03- 2024 completely by declaring the same as null and void and pass IA 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 Orders vide Lr.No. SE/lC/KNL/TW/JTO-2/F- Mydukur- Works/116 M, dated 07-03-2024 passed by the 4th Respondent and pass Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. RAMBABU KOPPINEEDI 3 Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR IRRI AND CAD (AP) The Court made the following: ORDER: To declare the action of the 4th respondent in passing orders vide Lr.No.SE/IC/KNL/TW/JTO-2/F-Mydukur-Works/116 M, dated 07.03.2024 wherein suspension/Blacklisting of the petitioners participation of tenders for a period of 3 years forfeiting deposit amount without following due process of law and without considering the representations for closure of contract due to non allocation of budget and without assigning proper reasons, as illegal and arbitrary, the present writ petition is filed. 2. 2. Heard Sri Rambabu, learned counsel representing Smt Marella Radha, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Y.Soma Raju, learned Government Pleader for Irrigation. 3. Learned Government Pleader for Irrigation on written instructions vide Lr.No.EE/KCC/NDL/GB/A3/NC of the Executive Engineer, K.C.Canal Division, Nandyal, submitted that the work agreement was duly concluded with the agency and subsequent to the conclusion of the agreement, the agency has executed the work, and the same is no longer under dispute on the aspect of eligibility or subsistence of blacklisting, as such, prayed to close the writ petition. 4. In reply, learned counsel for the petitioner requested to record the said submission and close the writ petition. 4 5. Taking their submissions into consideration, as the authorities have admitted that there is no subsistence of blacklisting, there remains nothing for adjudication and the writ petition is liable to be closed. 6. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is closed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications, pending if any, shall stand closed. _____________________________ JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI Date: 31st January, 2026 RKS