HARIJAN CO OP LABOUR CONTRACT SOCIETY LIMITED Vs. MUNICIPAL COMMISSIONER NARASARAOPET MUNICIPALITY GUNTUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners sought for registration as contractors with Respondent No.2, Narasaraopet Municipality of which Respondent No.1 is the Commissioner and Respondent No.3 is the Municipal Engineer. A notification was issued in this regard inviting applications for registration on 12-9-1996. The petitioners applied before 30-9-1996, the last date fixed under the notification. The applications were referred to Respondent No.3 who after an enquiry in regard to the eligibility and qualifications of the contractors for registration recommended their cases for registration in regard to first petitioner as a II Class Contractor, the second petitioner as a IV Class Contractor and the third petitioner as a IV Class Contractor. It is alleged that Respondent No.1 also found that all the petitioners were eligible to be registered as contractors as recommended by Respondent No.3. The applications were forwarded to Respondent No.3 for approval. Respondent No.3 in the meeting held on 30-11-1996 took up the subject under Item No.21 in regard to registration of the contractors and the cases of 15 contractors were under consideration. But there was a newspaper report in 'Eenadu', Guntur Edition dated 1-12-1996 to the effect that Respondent No.l had rejected all the applications for registration. A letter was addressed to Respondent No. 1 by the petitioners to furnish a copy of the rejection order. No reply was received. They also met Respondent Nos.1 and 3 personally and requested them to know the reasons for rejection. Orally they were informed that they were helpless as it was a decision of the Municipal Council. All these facts barring some implied allegations are admitted by the respondents.

(2.) It is contended by Sri P.Govind Reddy, learned Advocate for the petitioner that by virtue of Section 44 of the Andhra Pradesh Municipalities Act, 1965 (for short 'the Act'), the question of registration of contractors to the municipality was to be dealt with by virtue of fulfilment of all the conditions and Rule 5(1) of the A.P.Municipalities (Registration of Contractors) Rules, 1978 (for short 'the Rules'). When once the conditions prescribed therein were fulfilled by the contractors, it was for the Commissioner to register them as contractors under different grades and particularly, when there was recommendation by Respondent No.3 as to the eligibility and the fulfillment of the conditions by the petitioners and other contractors, and the Municipal Council had no jurisdiction to reject their applications for registration. The learned advocate has further added mat the registration of contractors, subject to fulfillment of conditions, ought to have been automatic as an administrative duty and Respondent No.2 without any scope for the Municipal Council cannot either consider or reject the applications. Sri Sambasiva Pratap, the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents has contended that by virtue of Section 43 of the Act and the Rules in relation to registration of contractors cited supra and having due regard to the implication of Rule 5 and Rule 6, if at all, such expression of registering authorities can be properly interpreted without any anamoly in the expression, it is the Municipal Council which is the registering authority and on other authority including the Commissioner. But Mr.Govind Reddy, the learned advocate contends that notwithstanding the use of expression 'registering authorities' and reading the whole rules as to registration of contractors, in spite of construing the provisions, in spite of the Rules not being properly drafted are fully explored by virtue of Rule 6 of the Rules. Such of sending the applications to the Commissioner as sought, they must be construed that it is the Commissioner who has to register the contractors.

(3.) Having heard both the sides and examining the relevant provisions as above, this Court is now examining the real intent and the scope of such provisions regarding the registration of contractors in the Municipality, Section 43 of the Act contemplates the authority of the Council to contract in addition to contractual powers of persons appointed by the Government. The speciality of the provision is the power of making the contract on behalf of the Council. The power of entering into contract by the Municipality has been declared and enumerated in the table appended to Section 43(1) which is as follows : "The power of making, on behalf of the council, any contract whereof the value or amount does not exceed the monetary limits specified in column (2) of the Table below, shall be exercised by the authority specified in column (3) thereof. <FRM>JUDGEMENT_444_ALD6_1997Html1.htm</FRM>