RAM CHANDER Vs. D.D.A.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CM No. 5618/2004

(2.) THIS appeal under Clause X of the Letters Patent is directed against the judgment, dated 12 December 2003, of a learned single Judge in W.P.(C). No. 7885/2003. By the impugned order, the learned Judge has declined to quash an order, dated 12 September 2003, passed by the Secretary, Contractors Registration Board, Delhi Development Authority, New Delhi, respondent No. 2 herein, demoting the appellant from Class -I (B&R) to Class -II (B&R) Contractor with immediate effect till further orders. The Delhi Development Authority ('DDA' for short) has been impleaded as the first respondent.

(3.) THE appellant neither signed the agreement nor executed the work awarded, with the result that the earnest money deposited by him with the tender was forfeited. Simultaneously a notice, dated 29 October 2002, was issued to him to show cause as to why disciplinary action in terms of the Rules of Enlistment for Contractors in DDA, 2002 be not taken against him. Upon consideration of appellant's reply dated 22 November 2002 and in exercise of powers conferred in terms of paragraph 22.1 of the said enlistment rules, the second respondent passed order, dated 12 September 2003, demoting the appellant to Class -II (B&R) Contractor. This order was challenged by the appellant by filing a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, inter -alia, alleging that it was arbitrary, irrational and violative of his fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 14 & 19(1)(g) of the Constitution. The learned Judge has come to the conclusion that in view of the admitted position that the appellant had failed to execute the contract after submitting the bid, the decision of the respondents to downgrade his registration from Class -I to Class -II Contractor did not warrant any interference under Article 226 of the Constitution, particularly when the Contractor Registration Board had proposed a penalty of debarring the appellant from tendering in future. Hence the present appeal.