MANOJ KUMAR Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this writ petition the petitioners have challenged the office order (P-1) dated 29-4-2002/4-5-2002 by which decision has been taken by the respondents to provide civil engineering contract up to value of Rs. 5 lacs to the Project affected people only whose land has been acquired.

(2.) IT is averred in the petition that petitioners are degree/diploma holder engineers in civil/raining engineering. Petitioner No. 7 is association of unemployed engineering contractor. It is submitted that earlier an order (P-2) was issued on 28th April, 1999 in which it was provided that civil engineering contract will remain open to all the contractors up to Rs. 10 lacs; unemployed engineer holding degree/diploma shall be given preference by relaxing eligibility criteria for the value of contract up to Rs. 10 lacs. Another circular (P-3) was issued on 21st December, 2001 by which preferential treatment to the unemployed engineers holding degree/diploma was continued while relaxing the eligibility criteria. It is submitted by the petitioners that purpose of the circulars (P-2 and P-3) was to get rid of the unemployment problem of civil/mining engineers having requisite qualifications. Petitioners have enjoyed the benefit of relaxation of eligibility. It has been wrongfully withdrawn as per order (P-1) dated 4-5-2002. Petitioners possessed better technical skill, their work was excellent, thus, order (P-1) deserves to be quashed. As opportunity of hearing has not been given, order is violative of principles of natural justice. Earlier the benefit was rightly extended which has been wrongfully taken away; action is arbitrary. Petitioners have invested the amount. Now they can not participate in the contract up to the value of Rs. 5 lacs, hence, the order is bad in law.

(3.) IN the return filed by respondent Nos. 2 and 3 it is contended that Northern Coal India Ltd. is subsidiary of Coal India Ltd. and engaged in the extraction of the coal. The relaxation in eligibility criteria has been provided to the project affected people, as their land has been acquired, they have lost right their livelihood, in order to provide them alternative employment; benefit is available to the petitioners in the contract of the value above Rs. 5 lacs; it has not been taken away from them, however, in the petty works of up to Rs. 5 lacs, preference has to be given to the project affected people, they are economically week local villagers, they were not capable to secure contract after competing with the established contractors of general category as well as the contractors of degree/diploma engineering category. Project affected people have been given only preferential treatment by relaxation of eligibility criteria. NCL is having system of registration of contractors. Registration for contractors under which all the contractors including project affected people and degree/diploma holders engineers were allotted category and grade depending upon their past experience/value/nature of civil work executed by them in past; as per decision the contract up to the value of Rs. 5 lacs will be awarded to the project affected people, it can not be said that there is everything equal between the project affected people and degree/diploma holder engineers; policy can not be said to be arbitrary; it is to provide alternate source of income and livelihood as they have been made land losers. Answering respondents have moral/social obligation to provide rehabilitation, hence, petitioners can not claim similar treatment; policy can not be said to be illegal.