Delhi High Court
Yogesh Kumar Aggarwal vs Union Of India on 6 July, 2009
Author: Sanjiv Khanna
13
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 2045/2008
YOGESH KUMAR AGGARWAL .... Petitioner
Through Mr. Rakesh Taneja, Adv.
versus
UOI ..... Respondent
Through Mr. Sanjeev Bhandari, Adv.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA
ORDER
% 06.07.2009
Mr. Yogesh Kumar Aggarwal, the petitioner herein in 1990 was
registered as class I contractor (Furniture category) with Director General of
Work, Central Public Works Department (CPWD for short). The said
registration was extended/provisionally extended up to 30th November,
2005.
2. The respondent CPWD in 2006 considered the revalidation
application submitted by the petitioner and asked the petitioner to submit
documents including Bank Solvency Certificate to the extent of Rs. 2 crores.
It is admitted by the respondent CPWD that there was typographical error
and as per guidelines, the petitioner was required to submit Bank Solvency
Certificate to the extent of Rs. 1 crore. Subsequently on 21st September,
2007, the respondent CPWD passed an order rejecting the petitioner's
request for revalidation as class I contractor (Furniture category) on the
WPC NO.2045-2008 Page 1
ground that the petitioner had failed to employ full time technical staff as
per the enlistment rules, 2001.
3. The petitioner corresponded and protested but ultimately made a
request for demotion to be listed as class II contractor.
4. The main grievance of the petitioner is that their application for
demotion as class II contractor has not been considered by the respondent
CPWD. It is also alleged that the respondents are treating the petitioner's
case as one of removal and therefore he is not eligible for being
registered/demoted as class II contractor.
5. The respondent CPWD in their additional affidavit filed on 17th
December, 2008 has clarified that in case of demotion to a lower class, OM
No.DGW/MAN.157 dated 14th July, 2008 applies and reads as under:-
" In case, the contractor himself seeks demotion to
a lower class on account of non-fulfillment of
revalidation criterion, the enlisting authority of Class
in which he is enlisted, on being satisfied prima-
facie, of the contractor fulfilling the requirements of
enlistment to a lower class, may revalidate the
enlistment in the lower class for a period of one year
to enable the contractor to obtain fresh enlistment
in such lower class with the concerned enlisting
authority."
6. It is further stated in the said affidavit that if petitioner makes an
application for registration, the same can be granted subject to the
petitioner satisfying the eligibility criteria mentioned in the OM dated 14th
WPC NO.2045-2008 Page 2
July, 2008. As per the said affidavit, the petitioner is required to meet
following eligibility criteria:-
"1. Three works of Rs. 6 lakh each required
during the last five years.
2. Bankers certificate of Rs. 25 lakh (fresh
certificate is to be submitted since last certificate is
more than 3 ½ years old).
3. Properly fitted workshop, paints,
polish & other finishing equipment (fresh verification
is to be done).
7. The respondent CPWD have filed another additional affidavit on 3rd
July, 2009 inclosing therewith amendment to the Rules of Enlistment of
Contractors in CPWD 2005. Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that
the petitioner will not be registered as a class II contractor in view of the
clause 4.1 of the amended rules. On the other hand, counsel for the
respondent CPWD states that the said clause does not apply and he will be
governed by the OM dated 14th July, 2008. He states that in case the
petitioner is interested, he should make an application for demotion to
class II contractor and if such application is made, the same will be
considered as per OM dated 14th July, 2008. The statement is accepted and
taken on record.
8. Counsel for the petitioner on instructions states that he shall be filing
an application for demotion as a class II contractor (Furniture category)
along with the request that the work done by him during the period 1990
WPC NO.2045-2008 Page 3
to November, 2005 may be taken into consideration for enlistment and
requirement that he should have 3 works of Rs. 6 lacs each be waived as
the petitioner has not been working since 2006 as the revalidation
application was pending before the CPWD and was subsequently rejected.
The writ petition may be disposed of but protecting the rights of the
petitioner to approach the Court, if required.
9. If any application for waiver is made, the same will be considered
sympathetically by the respondent CPWD. The application for registration
will be disposed of expeditiously preferably within a period of 3 months
from the date application is received. It is also clarified that that in case the
petitioner is aggrieved by any decision of the respondent CPWD, he will be
at liberty to ventilate his grievance in accordance with law.
The writ petition is accordingly disposed of.
SANJIV KHANNA, J.
JULY 06, 2009.
NA/P
WPC NO.2045-2008 Page 4
