NARENDER H CHANDWANI Vs. M C D

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks a writ of certiorari to quash the decision of the MCD contained in its circular dated 19. 05. 2008, which reads as under:-"the Commissioner, MCD vide orders dated 06. 05. 2008 has removed m/s Sona Consultant and Contractors, Prop. Sh. Narender H Chandwani, r/o H. No. O-55, Lajpat Nagar-II, New Delhi-24 from the approved panel of the contractors of MCD on account of none execution of work awarded against work orders No. 453/ee (Br.)-I/tc/cs/06-07 dated 25. 01. 2007. This is notified and circulated to all concerned for information and necessary action. "

(2.) THE admitted position is that the petitioner was an enlisted contractor with the respondent-MCD. He is the sole proprietor of his firm m/s Sona Consultants and Contractors. He was also empanelled for execution of work in South and Central zones under the unit rate system for one year vide communication dated 27. 06. 2007, issued by the MCD. The petitioner was issued a work order dated 25. 01. 007 under the unit rate system for carrying out the work of "development work in unauthorized colony Hari nagar Extension JKLM Block (253/1071) 7th Phase C/z, Sub Head providing RCC slab over crossing in J and K Block, Ward No. 65 CZ. " The estimated cost of the work involved was stated to Rs. 1,98,598/ -. The time of completion stipulated under the work order was four months. As per the work order the time was to be reckoned from the 10th day after the date of issue of the work order. The petitioner was directed to commence the work immediately. Another work order of even date was issued to carry out the work: "development work in unauthorized colony Hari Nagar, I-Block (256/1071) 7th Phase CZ, Sub-Head: Providing RCC slab over crossing in ward 65/cz. " The estimated cost of this work was Rs. 1,98,598/- and this work was also required to be completed within four months. This work order also contained an identical clause saying that the time shall be reckoned from the 10th day of the issue of the work order, and the petitioner was similarly required to start the work immediately.

(3.) IT appears that the petitioner took no steps whatsoever to carry out the two works aforesaid. Accordingly, he was issued communication dated 19. 02. 2007 pointing out that the date of start and date of completion of the works was 04. 02. 2007 and 03. 06. 2007 respectively. He was called upon to take steps to execute the works. This communication has not been filed by the petitioner on record. However, I have perused the same from the record as produced by the respondent. The same also finds mention in notice issued to the petitioner on 11. 09. 2007 which has been filed by the petitioner on record. It appears that despite the aforesaid notice dated 19. 02. 2007 the petitioner took no interest in executing the work. He was, accordingly, issued a show cause notice vide letter dated 26. 03. 2007, which too has not been filed by the petitioner on record, though it is mentioned in the notice dated 11. 09. 2007. This notice, which is found on the original record of the MCD, alleged that by failing to execute the works the petitioner has violated the conditions of NIT/urm as well as enlistment rules. The petitioner was required to show cause as to why action against him be not taken as per rule No. 22 of the enlistment rules. It appears that despite the said notice neither the petitioner took any steps to execute the works nor responded to this notice.