Barin Kumar Sen v. The Chief Engineer And Others

P.K Chattopadhyay, J.:— The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 20th August, 2009 issued by the Chief Engineer, Andaman Public Works Department, Port Blair whereby the said Chief Engineer rejected the prayer of revalidation of the enlistment of the petitioner as Class-II(civil) contractor in APWD on the ground of non-fulfillment of the condition No. 11 of the Rules for Enlistment of Contractors in APWD, 2002.

Mr. Jayapal, learned advocate representing the petitioner submits the prayer for revalidation of enlistment should be considered under the condition No. 19 and not under condition No. 11.

On examination of the relevant Rules of 2002, I find that the procedure for revalidation of the contractors has been specifically mentioned in condition No. 19. The said condition No. 19 of the said Rules of 2002 is set out hereunder:

“Revalidation of Enlistment: The validity of initial enlistment of the contractor shall be as given in Para 7.0 It shall, however, be revalidated on merits if desired by the contractor. Only the contractor, who has secured at least one work of appropriate magnitude in APWD, during the period of enlistment or last revalidation period of enlistment as the case may be, shall be considered for revalidation.

A work completed/secured as an associate contractor of the main contractor, to whom a composite contract was/has been awarded, shall also qualify for consideration of revalidation.” Mr. Tabraiz, learned counsel representing the respondents submits that the prayer for revalidation was rejected in terms of condition No. 11 as specifically mentioned in office order No. 1236 dated 19 December, 1988 issued by the Chief Engineer. The said condition No. 11 is set out hereunder:

“11. He is required to secure works in the Department. In case he fails to secure any work during the period of the consecutive years he will be liable to be weeded out from the approved list of contractors of this Department.”

Mr. Jayapal submits that the aforesaid condition cannot be made applicable in the case of the petitioner, since the petitioner had no scope to secure any work during the period when the said petitioner was illegally black-listed by the respondent authorities and that blacklisting order was subsequently quashed by this Hon'ble Court.

The Chief Engineer while considering the prayer for revalidation of enlistment of the petitioner as contractor failed to consider the fact that the petitioner herein could not secure any work during the period he was blacklisted by the respondent authorities.

The prayer for revalidation of enlistment of the petitioner should be considered afresh by a competent authority since the Chief Engineer while rejecting the prayer for revalidation of the enlistment of the petitioner failed to consider the fact that the petitioner had no scope to secure any works during the period he was illegally blacklisted by the authorities.

In terms of condition No. 11 of the office order No. 1236 dated 19 December, 1988, the petitioner was liable to be weeded out from the approved list of the contractors of the department. From the available records, I do not find that the respondents authorities have weeded out this petitioner from the approved list of contractors of the department.

In the present case, however, the respondent authorities rejected the prayer for revalidation of the enlistment for non-fulfillment of the condition No. 11 of the aforesaid order No. 1236 dated 19 December, 1988 without taking note of specific provision in the Rules of 2002 namely, rule No. 19.

For the aforementioned reasons, the impugned order passed by the Chief Engineer dated 20 August, 2010 cannot be sustained and the same is accordingly, quashed.

The competent authority of the APWD is directed to reconsider the prayer of the petitioner for revalidation of his enlistment as Class-II(Civil) contractor in APWD on the basis of the application filed earlier by the petitioner without any further delay but positively within a period of five weeks from the date of communication of this order.

The competent authority is also directed to grant an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner or his authorized representative before taking a final decision in the matter.

With the aforesaid directions, this writ petition stands disposed of.

In the facts of the present case, there will be, however, no order as to costs.

(P.K Chattopadhyay, J.)