1 APHC010329392026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3457] THURSDAY, THE 16th DAY OF JULY 2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N WRIT PETITION NO: 17637/2026 Between: 1. KARTHIKEYA PRASANNA INFRATECH,, REP.BY ITS MANAGING.PARTNER, M. RAJASEKHAR, S/O NARASA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, RIO D.NO. 26-39-129/50, 3/2 RAMI REDDY NAGAR, A.T.AGRAHARAM, GUNTUR. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION DEPARTMENT, A.P SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI, GUNTUR DISTRICT - 522238. 2. THE COMMISSIONER AND DIRECTOR OF MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION, ANDHRA PRADESH AT TADEPALLI, GUNTUR DISTRICT - 522501. 3. THE GUNTUR MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, REP. BY ITS COMMISSIONER, CORPORATION OFFICE, GUNTUR - 522 002 ...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 tomay be pleased to issue a writ or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the Proceedings bearing ROC No. 853747/2024- 25/ENG/E4, dated 13.04.2026, issued by the 3rd Respondent, in cancelling the works allotted/under tender process in favour of the petitioner and ordering forfeiture of EMD/Security Deposits, without issuing any show-cause notice, without furnishing the alleged material/digital 2 evidence, without conducting enquiry and without affording opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, as illegal, arbitrary, violative of principles of natural justice, violative of Articles 14, 19(1)(g) and 21 of the Constitution of India, and consequently set aside the same, with a further direction to the respondents to restore the petitioner's position in respect of the subject tenders/works and refund/restore the EMD/Security Deposits of the petitioner and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2026 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 may be pleased to suspend the operation of the Proceedings bearing ROC No. 853747/2024-25/ENG/E4, dated 13.04.2026, issued by the 3rd Respondent, including cancellation of the petitioners works/tenders and forfeiture of EMD/Security Deposits, and consequently direct the espondents not to take any coercive or consequential steps pursuant to the said proceedings, pending disposal of the above Writ Petition, and pass such Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. VENKATA DURGA RAO ANANTHA Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP MUNCIPAL ADMN AND URBAN DEV AP 3 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N WRIT PETITION NO: 17637 of 2026 ORDER: The present writ petition is filed aggrieved by the proceedings bearing Roc No.853747/2024-25/ENG/E4, dated 13.04.2026, issued by respondent No.3, whereby the works allotted to the petitioner under the tender process were cancelled and the Earnest Money Deposit (EMD)/Security Deposits were ordered to be forfeited, without issuing any show-cause notice, without furnishing the material/digital evidence relied upon, without conducting any enquiry and without affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri A.S.C. Bose, learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondent No.3. 3. Learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondent No. 3 submits, on the basis of the instructions received, that the proceedings permitting the petitioner to participate in future tenders shall be issued shortly. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that, though the petitioner had not resorted to any irregularity, malpractice or discrepancy, respondent No. 3 had initiated proceedings against the petitioner. It is submitted that, upon due enquiry, it was found that the petitioner had not committed any irregularity, malpractice or discrepancy and, accordingly, the proposed action against the petitioner was dropped. However, the formal proceedings evidencing the dropping of the said action are yet to be issued. It is further submitted that the delay in issuance of such proceedings is causing 4 prejudice to the petitioner by preventing the petitioner from participating in other tenders. 5. Having considered the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for both sides, this Court is of the view that, once the competent authority has decided to drop the proceedings against the petitioner, there is no justification for delaying the issuance of the consequential communication. Accordingly, respondent No. 3 is directed to issue appropriate proceedings, duly intimating the petitioner that the proceedings initiated against the petitioner have been dropped and that the petitioner is eligible to participate in future tenders. Such proceedings shall be issued within a period of three (03) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 6. Consequently, the impugned proceedings are set aside. It is, however, made clear that the respondents shall take appropriate steps, in accordance with law, for restoration/refund of the petitioner's EMD and security deposit. 7. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. ___________________ JUSTICE HARINATH.N Date:16.07.2026 RSD 5 Whether the order is: Speaking Reasoned ☑ Reportable Non-reportable ☑ 6 132 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N WRIT PETITION NO: 17637 of 2026 Date: 16.07.2026 RSD