GANESH ELECTRIC STORES Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) APART from questioning the validity of Rule 11. 2 of the Rules of Enlistment of Contractors under CPWD, 2005 (hereinafter also referred to as the 'rules'), prescribing a bankers certificate from a Scheduled Bank for enlistment of a contractor with the Central Public Works Department (hereafter for short referred to as the 'cpwd') as well as for revalidation of such enlistment, the petitioner has assailed as well, in this proceeding, the letters dated 18. 10. 2006 and 30. 10. 2006, insisting on the compliance of the imperatives of paragraph 3. 3. (iii) of the Rules, as a condition precedent for such revalidation.

(2.) I have heard Mr. A. B. Choudhury, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. J. P. Sharma and Ms. S. A. Choudhury, Advocates for the petitioner and Mr. N. K. Baruah, learned Central Government Counsel for the respondents.

(3.) THE pleaded account of the relevant facts is indispensably essential to appropriately evaluate the rival contentions. The petitioner has introduced itself to be a registered partnership firm and a enlisted contractor with the CPWD vide No. 229 dated 25. 5. 1998, the term whereof had expired on 24. 5. 2006. As permissible under the Rules, more particularly, Rule 19 thereof, the petitioner on 18. 5. 2006, submitted an application in the prescribed form for the revalidation of its enlistment. According to the petitioner, under Rule 19, such an application along with all essential documents, is acceptable till the date of expiry of the enlistment and even, thereafter, with the prescribed late fee and on receipt thereof, provisional extension for a period upto six months is granted as a matter of course. Further, even, if, such an order of provisional extension is not issued, the existing enlistment is deemed to be renewed for a period of six months from the date of expiry of the validity thereof. While, the application of the petitioner, was thus pending, the Executive Engineer (EL), Guwahati Electrical Division, Division-I and II, CPWD, Guwahati invited tenders for various works under the Department. Though the petitioner applied for the tender papers, the same was refused on the ground that the validity of its enlistment had expired on 24. 5. 2006. The decision to the said effect, was conveyed to the petitioner on 20. 06. 2006 in writing. Though, it by its letters dated 06. 06. 2006, 17. 06. 2006 and 19. 06. 2006, underlined that its application for revalidation of the enlistment was pending and that therefore, it was automatically entitled to a provisional revalidation thereof, for six months, the same did not evoke any response. Having perceived the action of the respondent authorities to be incontravention of the Rules, the petitioner brought his grievance before this Court in W. P. (C) No. 3155 of 2006, for a direction to the respondents for revalidation of its enlistment and issuance of tender papers for the works advertised. This Court by its order dated 31. 7. 2006, while noticing the pleaded stand that the documents required for revalidation of the petitioner's enlistment had already been forwarded, directed the concerned respondent authority to grant the revalidation within a period of 2 months from the date of receipt of the documents, if the same were found to be in accord with the requirement of the Rules.