AYUB ALI Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition is filed by Shri Ayub Ali, the petitioner, against the Union of India, respondent No.1 and the Director General (Works), CPWD, respondent No.2 seeking a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to revalidate original enlishment in Class II (B & R) category, of contractors in accordance with the order dated 18th May 1998 (annexure G) for the period of five years and accordingly further directing the respondents to issue tender documents with imposing any geographical restrictions on the petitioner.

(2.) On 11th July 1984, the respondent No.2 registered the petitioner in the category of class II contractors (B&R) as Oper the O.M. No. C/14-II (8&R) dated 11th July 1984. This registration enable the petitioner to submit the tenders for the whole of the country. On 18th September 1995 vide office Order No. 10(1)/91-A&C (NDZ-III)/299-A, the petitioner's aforesaid enlistment was revalidated for a period of 5 years with effect from 1st October 1995. However, the area of operation was reduced from All India basis to North Zone only Which comprises of State of Punjab, Himachel Pradesh, Uttar Pradesh, Rajsthan, J & K, Haryana, Chandigarh and Delhi, On l17th April 2000 the petitioner again applied for revalidation for 5 years in accordance with the rules. On 19th June 2000 the petitioner made represetation against the reduction of the working area of operation. The request was reiterated by the letter dated 15th September 2000 by the petitioner. On 27th September 2000 the respondents vide letter No. C-14-00-File/II/B&R/300 revalidated the enlistment of the petitioner only for a period of three months i.e. upto 31st December 2000 instead of five years and also restricted the jurisdiction of the tenders by the petitioner to Delhi Region only. On 5th January 2001 the petitioner applied for issuance of the tender documents but these documents were refused to the petitioner on the ground that the revalidation of enlishment beyond 31st December 2000 had not been enclosed by the petitioner. On 5th January 2001 the petitioner submitted a representation against the restricted revalidation of the petitioner's enlistment only upto 31st December 2000. The petitioner also sought to challenge the denial of enlistment for 5 years revalidation as according to him as per annexure R 1, office Memo dated 1st July 1994, for fresh enlistment in class II category three works of Rs. 25 lacs are required and as per annexure R 1 for revalidation also works for Rs.25 lacs during the last 5 years is required. Reliance has also been placed upon the memo No.DGW/Con/83 dated 27th June 1995, anexure R 3, which stated that the revalidation of the contractor's enlistment will be done if the contractor secures 35 or more marks in the over all grading and such grading shall be applicable for a period of five years from the date of issue. The petitioner submitted that the evaluation of the contractor's performance is to be done as per the following table:

(3.) The petitioner while making the application for revalidation furnished the details of two works completed by him. It is further submitted that as per rules for realidation only one work of Rs.25 lacs was required and the work mentioned at serial No.1 is much more than Rs.25 lacs and the quality and the speed in respect of this work was labelled as 'poor'" and hence revalidation of enlistment was refused by the respondents on this ground.