S. R. NAYAK, J. ( 1 ) THE appellant herein is the petitioner in the writ petition. In the writ petition, the action of the A. P. State Electricity Board in refusing to receive the tenders from the petitioner was assailed. ( 2 ) THE petitioner also assailed the Circular No. CGG/311/f. Misc. /148/95, dated 17-5-1995 issued by the Chief Engineer, Generation by which it was directed that no purchases shall be made from the petitioner and others and no contract shall be awarded to the petitioner and certain others mentioned therein. Assailing the impugned circular dated 17-5-1995 among other grounds as could be seen from para-5 of the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, it was contended that no notice or opportunity was given to the petitioner before the impugned circular was issued. ( 3 ) THE learned single Judge, opining that the refusal of the Board to purchase the goods from the petitioner cannot be equated to the blacklisting of the petitioner and that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the refusal of the Board to enter into contract with the petitioner is justified, dismissed the writ petition. Hence, this writ appeal by the aggrieved company. ( 4 ) WE have heard Sri Movva Chandrasekhara Rao, learned senior Counsel for the appellant. None appeared on behalf of the Board nor any representation was made on its behalf. ( 5 ) IT is quite clear from the impugned circular dated 17-5-1995 issued by the Chief Engineer, Generation of the Board that this circular was not preceded by any notice to the petitioner and three others mentioned in the said circular. It is true that it is nobody s right to insist that the Government should contract with him, but at the same time, the State and State authorities and the instrumentalities of the State while parting with their largesse are under a constitutional obligation cast on them by virtue of equality clause of Article 14 of the Constitution to throw open the opportunity to all eligible persons to compete for award or grant of the contract, and this right flowing from Article 14 of the Constitution cannot be denied to a person by arbitrary action or in violation of principles of natural justice. If the Board wanted to disqualify the petitioner and similarly circumstanced others from participating in the tender proceedings, the Board ought to have issued notices to them giving them an opportunity to have their say in the matter before disqualifying them from submitting tenders for award of the contract. That has not been done in the instant case. On that short ground, we are inclined to allow this writ appeal. ( 6 ) ACCORDINGLY, we allow this writ appeal and set aside the order of the learned single Judge and quash the impugned Circular No. CGG/311/f. Misc. /148/95, dated 17-5-1995 insofar as it relates to the appellant/writ petitioner. However, we make it very clear that it is open to the respondent Board, if it is so advised, to take steps to disqualify the appellant company from submitting tenders for award of contracts in accordance with law and in conformity with the principles of natural justice and after issuing notice to the appellant stating reasons or grounds on the basis of which it proposes to disqualify it from competing in the tender proceedings and giving a reasonable opportunity to the appellant company to have its say in the matter. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the parties are directed to bear their own costs. All other contentions raised by the parties are left open to be agitated at an appropriate stage.