MANAB KUMAR MITRA Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Grievance of the petitioner which has brought him before this Court is that he applied for renewal of licence granted to him under the P.W.D. Contractors' Registration Rules, 1967 (in short, the 'Rules') which has not been disposed of.

(2.) A brief reference to the factual aspects as portrayed by petitioner would suffice :Petitioner was granted a certificate of registration in terms of Rule 6 of the Rules in the year 1977. The same was being renewed from time to time. He applied for renewal of his certificate of registration to act as a 'B' class contractor on 25-2-1995 for the period 199596 to 1997-98. The certificate was not renewed, and on the other hand he was asked to refund certain amounts allegedly due from him. Over this controversy correspondence was exchanged. Petitioner disputed his liability to pay anything as demanded by the authorities. Since he was not able to execute any contract work in the absence of a licence, he has moved this Court for a direction to the concerned authorities, more particularly, Chief Engineer (Roads), Orissa and Executive Engineer, Cuttack (R & B) Division, opp. parties 2 and 3 respectively to effect renewal. It is submitted that renewal is the rule, and there can be exception for good and sufficient reasons, which do not exist.

(3.) In the counter-affidavit filed by the opposite parties reference has been made to Rule 11 of the Rules to contend that on account of serious contraventions and non execution of works, renewal was not effected. It is pointed out that certain works entrusted to the petitioner were not completed in time leading to rescission thereof.