SHIVA SHAKTHI CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED Vs. ENGINEER IN CHIEF ADM WING IRRIGATION AND CAD DEPT HYD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Letter No. Rc. ENC. ADA/TC.3/20233/97, dated 22-1-1998 written by the first respondent to the petitioner-firm cancelling its registration as a Special Class Contractor and debarring it from tendering in all categories in future is impugned in this writ petition. The petitioner-firm got itself registered as a Special Class Contractor in the year 1989. It claims to have executed various civil works worth over Rs.20 crores of the Government and its agencies. It appears that serious differences arose between one of the Directors of the petitioner-firm and the-then Chief Engineer, D. Sreerama Murthy (for short the said 'Chief Engineer') with regard to awarding works relating to widening the Mahabubghat in KM.256/710 to 263 NM-7 of Nagpur-Hyderabad Section. One of the Directors of the petitioner-firm appears to have levelled certain serious allegations against the said Chief Engineer, by loading a representation before the Government. However, the petitioner-firm appears to have withdrawn the said complaint: but, according to it, under pressure. We are not concerned with the details relating to the said complaint. While so, the first respondent herein called for tenders for execution of work of laying of roads in ten reaches in Adilabad area in October, 1997. The petitioner-firm was the only Contractor which satisfied all the requirements, including the essential condition relating to the location of the machinery of the Contractor within a radius of seventy kilo metres of the proposed work. The contract accordingly was awarded to the petitioner-firm. The petitioner-firm entered into an agreement with the respondent in January, 1998 for laying of the road in the said reaches. The said work is stated to be in progress.

(2.) In the meanwhile, the first respondent issued show-cause notice Confdl. Lr. No. RC/ENC/ADA/TC3/20235/ 97, dated 29-10-1997 alleging that the behaviour adopted by M. Rameshwara Reddy, one of the Directors of the petitioner-firm was "faulty" and as per G.O. Ms. No.521, Irrigation (PW. Wing) Department, dated 10-12-1984 a Contractor shall be removed from the approved list, if he fails to abide by the conditions of registration. Explanation was sought for from the petitioner-firm as to why its name shall not be removed from the approved list of the contractors. The petitioner-firm having come to know about the action initiated by the respondents submitted its explanation on 3-12-1997 denying the allegation of faulty behaviour attributed to one of its Directors and requested the respondents to furnish the details of allegations, as the allegations made in the show-cause notice dated 29-10-1997 were vague and indefinite. No details were furnished by the respondents. The petitioner-firm again addressed a letter on 17-12-1997 contending inter alia that the action initiated was not bona fide one and it was based on extraneous consideration and that in any event the petitioner-firm is not guilty of any faulty behaviour attributed to one of it's Directors. The petitioner-firm has also raised it's objections in the matter that its name cannot be deleted from the list of approved contractors on account of any alleged faulty behaviour of one of it's Directors. Thereafter the impugned letter dated 22-1-1998 has been communicated to the petitioner-firm,

(3.) It is evident from the record that tender schedules were not issued to the petitioner-firm in respect of the work of "widening the single lane carriage way to double lane without strengthening the reach from KM 256.710 to 263.400 of Nagpur - Hyderabad Section of NH-7" on the ground that the petitioner-firm does not fulfil the conditions of chit tender notice. The petitioner-firm approached this Court and obtained interim orders to issue schedules and receive the tenders, but not to publish the results of the tender. However, the said writ petition was dismissed on 7-10-1996. But the tenders, however, could not be finalised on account of the directions from the Government, as an inquiry was initiated into the matter by the Vigilance and Enforcement Department. Subsequently clearance appears to have been given by the Vigilance and Enforcement Department and tenders were directed to be finalised in accordance with the Rules.