CHAAND COTTONS Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition has been filed by the petitioner aggrieved of the action of the respondents of not including the petitioner in the list of "A" Class Contractor for civil supplies to the respondents. Contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the respondents have wrongly valued worth of petitioner's property to be only Rs. 11,79,000/ - and on that basis they have wrongly assessed financial worth of the petitioner by multiplying the aforesaid amount by 24 times which came to Rs. 2,82,96,000/ - treating the petitioner eligible for registration as Class "B" Contractor.

(2.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner has argued that the respondents have failed to consider that in wealth tax return, value of the property in question has been declared by the petitioner to be Rs. 39.30 lacs. Reference in this connection is made to Annexure -4 dated 26.04.2012 to argue that the respondents themselves in the query sent to the District Magistrate, Bhatinda gave particulars of the wealth tax return of the petitioner wherein the details of the property in question as also the value declared to be Rs. 39.30 lacs was given. The petitioner mortgaged her plot measuring 131 sq. yards by registered deed on valuation of Rs. 35 lacs in favour of Respondent No. 2, MG, ASC, Head Quarters, South Western Command as a security on 17.12.2012 before Sub Registrar, Bhatinda and additional security of Rs. 1,68,000/ - was also deposited with the respondents @ 0.2% of Rs. 8.4 crores. Therefore, worth of the property of the petitioner as per Clause 15 of Chapter II Section A of the Tender Documents should have been taken 24 times of the amount of Rs. 35,00,000/ - + Rs. 1,68,000/ - which would be much more than. Rs. 7.20 Crores. Petitioner ought to have been registered as "A" Class Contractor.

(3.) EVEN though the petitioner has declared valuation of property in question to be Rs. 35 lacs in the registered mortgage deed and also in wealth tax return, the petitioner declared residential plot to be Rs. 39.30 lacs, but the respondents have rejected claim of the petitioner for registration as "A" Class Contractor on the basis of enquiry they made from the Tehsildar and District Magistrate Bhatinda wherein it was revealed that circle -rate of the land in question was Rs. 9,000/ - per sq. yard and on that: basis they have computed value of the property to be Rs. 11,79,000/ - and multiplied the same by 24, thus making total of Rs. 2,82,96,000/ -. This fact has been communicated to the petitioner vide letter dated 02.07.2014 (Annexure -14). Unilaterally declaring higher valuation of the property will not have a binding effect upon the respondents not to apply circle rate for valuation of the property. The respondents in response to the notice for demand of justice served upon them by the petitioner have conveyed that the circle rate, which they have referred as government rate, for the disputed land, was Rs. 9,000/ - per sq. yard as per the intimation given by Tehsildar dated 07.04.2014 and District Collector vide letter dated 11.04.2014. Even otherwise also, the valuation of property in question in any case is a factual dispute and the same cannot be subject matter of adjudication by this Court.