LAWS(CHH)-2010-10-36

BARBRIK PROJECT LIMITED Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

Decided On October 05, 2010
BARBRIK PROJECT LIMITED Appellant
V/S
STATE OF CHHATTISGARH, CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, CHIEF ENGINEER AND M.L. HALDKAR Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Petitioner has filed the instant petition and prayed for quashing of the order dated 6th February, 2010 (Annexure- P/1) whereby the Petitioner's registration as a contractor in S-5 category in the Chhattisgarh Rural Road Development Agency (hereinafter referred to as the CGRRDA') has been cancelled.

(2.) BRIEFLY stated, the Petitioner's case is that M/s Bajrang Lal Agrawal, a partnership firm, was registered as S-5 contractor with the Respondent CGRRDA since 2000. With the passage of time the business of the firm grew. Considering the same, almost all the partners of the firm decided for external expansion by incorporating a company limited by shares in the name and style of M/s Barbrik Project Limited in the year 2008 and accordingly, the Petitioner was incorporated in the year 2008 and the certificate of incorporation was issued by the Registrar of Companies on 7th April, 2008 and the Company commenced the business w.e.f. 2nd May, 2008.

(3.) SHRI Ankit Pandey, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner, submitted that the Petitioner's registration as S-5 contractor has been erroneously cancelled on the ground that it did not have experience of its own for claiming registration with the CGRRDA and the registration is claimed on the basis of experience of Director or partner of the Petitioner's company whereas, the Petitioner applied for registration on the basis of its own experience, as the Petitioner vide its resolution dated 2nd May, 2008 has taken over the business of the firm as a going concern and the registration certificate was granted to the Petitioner by Respondent No. 3 by accepting merger of M/s Bajrang Lal Agrawal with the Petitioner with all the contracts and the work in hand vide Annexure-P/15. From the note sheets of the Respondents, which have been filed by the Petitioner along with his rejoinder as Annexure-P/23, it would be evident that the Respondents after considering that M/s Bajrang Lal Agrawal has merged in the Petitioner company recommended for registration as S-5 category contractor and the same has been accepted by the Chief Engineer of the CGRRDA and the registration certificate of S-5 contractor has been issued. From the document of Annexure-P/15, it would be evident that his registration could be down-graded, cancelled or suspended only as per clauses 2.097, 2.100, 2.101 and 2.102 of the Works Department Manual, 1983.