J P AGGARWAL Vs. DIRECTOR GENERAL OF WORKS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner by this writ petition seeks a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to immediately revalidate the registration of the petitioner and permit him to participate in the tenders for Class-II (B & R) Contractors. Petitioner also seeks quashing of the memorandums dated 1/7/1994, read with memorandum dated 13/10/1991, 12/12/1994, 27/6/1995, 17/10/1995 setting out the requirements for revalidation of enlistment of contractors in CPWD in respect of Class-I and V, declare the same as irrational, biased, discriminatory, defective and quash the same as violative of Articles 19 and 21 and other relevant provisions of the Constitution of India. Petitioner also assails memorandums dated 6/6/2000, 21/8/2000 and 11/10/2000.

(2.) Counsel for the petitioner, during the course of arguments confined his submission and relief to direction to the respondents for renewal of the enlistment of the petitioner as Class-II contractor. Petitioner and other contractors were granted revalidation of their enlistment vide the office order No.44/95(B & R) dated 20.11.1995, appearing at page 120 of the paper book Annexure-P.11. This enlistment was for a period of 5 years. Learned counsel for the petitioner in support of his case states that the petitioners were entitled to revalidation and relies on condition No.11. The said condition reads as under:

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner. submits that the only requirement as per the above condition for revalidation is to apply 3 months prior to the expiry and to give particulars of the work executed. Revalidation is to be granted unless work is not executed. Learned counsel submits that it is not in dispute that the petitioner during the last 5 years has executed the works, particulars of which are given at annexure P.12 to P.17. Counsel submits that the said memorandum did not prescribe any minimum limit of work or magnitude thereof, which was required to be executed. The revalidation of petitioner enlistment was governed by the condition, as given in the said memorandum and the respondents are precluded from enforcing any fresh conditions or a criteria for denying renewal of the enlistment to the petitioner.