Vijay Power Generators Ltd vs Union Of India And Ors
2013 Latest Caselaw 4620 Del

        *       IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%                                                Date of Decision: 04.10.2013

+                              W.P.(C) 6363 of 2011
VIJAY POWER GENERATORS LTD
                                                                ..... Petitioner
                               Through:       Mr. H.L. Chaturvedi, Ms. Anjali
                                              Chaturvedi and Mr. Mohd. Aqil
                                              Saifi, Advs.
                               versus

        UNION OF INDIA AND ORS
                                                               ..... Respondent
                          Through:      Mr. Amrit Pal Singh, CGSC for R-1 to
                                        3.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.JAIN

                                     JUDGMENT

V.K.JAIN, J. (ORAL)

Vide application dated 25.8.2010, the petitioner applied to the Chief Engineer, HQ, MES seeking enlistment in MES as a contractor in class-B. Vide letter dated 8.9.2010, the respondents requested the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Special Branch to verify the character and antecedents of the Directors of the petitioner. Vide communication dated 20.9.2010, the respondents sought clarification from the petitioner in respect of certain deficiencies noticed in its application. One of the deficiencies found was that the enlistment was sought in „B" class and Low Tension Electric Works upto 1100 volts and high tension electric works excluding 33 kva categories but the T&P commensurate to the

categories had not been submitted on affidavit. Vide communication dated 10.11.2010, the petitioner submitted certain documents, pursuant to the communication which it had received from the respondents on 20.9.2010. Vide letter dated 21.12.2010, the petitioner requested respondents to consider its enlistment application for Class „C‟ instead of Class „B‟, on the ground that it had not done single work of Rs.1.50 crore, which was the requirement for enlistment in category „B‟. Vide letter dated 13.2.2011, the petitioner informed the respondent that since they were not found eligible for Class-B, they written a letter seeking enlistment in Class-C instead of Class-B.

2. Vide letter dated 7.3.2011, the respondents informed the petitioner as under:

"You are well aware that originally last date for fresh enlistment was 31.10.2010. You were intimated to complete that shortcoming in the documents submitted by you vide this office letter no.80600/VGPL/03/E8 dated 20.9.2010 and the same were completed by you vide your letter no. NIL dated 10.11.2011 (received on 25.11.2010). It shows that you have not completed your documents before the original last date for enlistment and you have only submitted the documents when you might have come in the notice that date of enlistment has been extended i.e. upto 31.01.2011. However, the documents required for category of High Tension have not been submitted. As record available the police verification has been received in this office only 31.01.2011 and this was the last date for submission of documents to HQ, CEWC,

Chandimandir for registration, hence your case cannot be forwarded to CEWC.

Since no enlistment was forthcoming, the petitioner filed this writ petition seeking the following reliefs:

(a) issue an appropriate writ, order or directions for quashing the impugned order dated 7.3.2011 passed by Shri Narendra Saigal, Director (Contracts) HQ Chief Engineers, Delhi Zone, Delhi Cantt by which the case of petitioner was not forwarded for enlistment of Class B contractor of M.E.S.

3. In its counter affidavit the respondents, inter alia, have stated that despite being aware of the enlistment procedure, the petitioner delayed submission of the application for enlistment and submitted the same on the last date, (ii) deposited the fees for police verification two months late on 9.11.2010 and (iii) did not submit complete documents in time and on technical and financial evaluation it was found that the petitioner did not have technical capabilities for enlistment in class B and (iv) the police verification was received only on 31.01.2011 which was the last date for registration of contractor.

4. A perusal of the communication dated 7.3.2011 would show that the application of the petitioner seeking enlistment as contractor with MES was rejected on the ground that he had not submitted complete documents before the last date of enlistment i.e. 31.01.2011 since the documents required for category of high tension had not been submitted and police verification report was received only on 31.01.2011, which

was the last date for submission of documents to Headquarter, CEWC Chandimandir for registration. It would thus be seen that 31.01.2011 was the last date of submission of documents to Headquarters, CEWC, Chandimandir and not for the purpose of enlistment itself. Admittedly, the police verification had been received by the respondents on 31.01.2011. As regards, the documents required for high tension category, the same were not required in view of the request made by the petitioner vide letter dated 21.12.2010 seeking enlistment in category C. Therefore, it is evident that it was quite possible for the respondent to send the application of the petitioner to Chief Engineer, Headquarter, CEWC, Chandimandir on 31.01.2011 which was the last date stipulated for this purpose. It appears that the respondents did not apply mind to the fact that the petitioner had vide letter dated 25.8.2010 sought enlistment in category C instead of initial request for enlistment in category B and that is why its application was not processed for enlistment in class „C‟.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner states that the enlistment was to be valid for five years ending on 31.12.2015. There is no reason why the petitioner should not be duly considered for enlistment in category C for the rest of the period for which the enlistment was sought by it.

The writ petition is hereby disposed of with the direction to the respondents to consider the application of the petitioner for enlistment in category C contractor as per rules and decide the same, within eight weeks from today. If granted, the enlistment will be valid for the rest of

the term only. The decision so taken by the respondents shall be communicated to the petitioner within one week thereafter.

V.K. JAIN, J OCTOBER 04, 2013/rd