M/s Veda Infrastructure vs Union Of India & Ors.

Since the grievance projected and the relief claimed in all these petitions are almost identical, the petitions have, therefore, been heard together and taken up for disposal by virtue of this common judgment.

The fulcrum of the case set up by the petitioners, who are registered contractors/firms supplying services to the respondents-Military Engineering Services (MES), is that they have been carrying out contract works for the respondents for several years and have, throughout, rendered satisfactory services. The petitioners have challenged the communications /orders issued by the respondents whereby they have been rendered ineligible for participation in the tendering process on the ground that certain works allotted to them were shown as being in “slow progress” in the relevant Work Load Returns (WLRs). It is the case of the petitioners that the said entries do not reflect the actual position, as the works in question had either been substantially/completely executed, or their execution was delayed for reasons beyond the control of the petitioners, including restrictions on access to the sites, circumstances prevailing during the COVID-19 pandemic and the period following the constitutional changes of August, 2019, besides other circumstances, including personal/family difficulties and health-related issues.

It is further averred that, in certain cases, works were cancelled by the respondents despite substantial completion thereof, without release of the amounts claimed by the petitioners. The petitioners accordingly contend that they cannot be held responsible for delays attributable to circumstances beyond their control or to acts/omissions on the part of the respondents or their concerned units. It is also the case of the petitioners that they have subsequently completed the works which were earlier shown as being in slow progress and that the impugned entries in the relevant WLRs as on date, therefore, unjustified and ought not to constitute a basis for debarring or rendering them ineligible from participating in the tendering process. On these grounds, the petitioners seek quashing of the impugned communications/ orders to the extent they affect their eligibility and a direction to the respondents to permit them to participate in the tendering/allotment process in accordance with the applicable rules and conditions.

The record reveals that this Court, after feeling prima facie satisfied, has stayed the impugned orders in almost all the cases and given liberty to the petitioners to participate in the various tenders irrespective of the impediment projected by the respondents through the medium of the impugned communications, and the participation of the petitioners in the fresh tenders, however, is subject to the final orders to be passed in these writ petitions.

Since the relief sought by the petitioners has been granted by this Court on the very first day of hearing, whereby the various petitioners have been allowed to participate in the tenders, however, the final veil/impediment pointed out by the respondents has not been finally removed/corrected, despite the change of circumstances, which could only be removed if the matter is heard and decided finally.

Mr. T. M. Shamsi, learned Deputy Solicitor General of India submits that these writ petitions can be disposed at this stage with a direction to the Chief Engineer Command to treat these writ petitions as representations and to accord consideration to the same, within some reasonable time by taking into consideration the aforesaid developments as also the policy and the guidelines framed by the respondents in this regard, which find mention in the communication produced by Mr. Shamsi, learned Deputy Solicitor General of India, which is taken on record.

A bare perusal of the aforesaid communication reveals that the respondents have formulated a policy, which for facility of reference is reproduced as under:

Thus, from a bare perusal of the policy framed by the respondents, a complete mechanism has been provided in the aforesaid policy, which is required to be followed by the Chief Engineer while according consideration to the case of the petitioners individually by treating these writ petitions as representations within some reasonable period, to which the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners are not averse.

For the foregoing discussion, this Court is of the considered opinion that no fruitful purpose would be served to keep these petitions alive, and accordingly, the same are disposed of by virtue of this common judgment, with the consent of the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners and the respondents with a direction to the concerned Chief Engineer (Command) to treat each writ petition separately as representation on behalf of respective petitioners and take a final call thereon in accordance with law and pass a detailed speaking order with respect to each and every petitioner separately, by taking note of the workload strictly in the light of the policy so framed by the respondents mentioned supra, expeditiously, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. It is further made clear that in case the decision of the concerned Chief Engineer (Command), after taking into consideration all the relevant facts and the subsequent developments in the light of the contemporaneous official record, goes against the petitioners, the petitioners shall be at liberty to seek appropriate remedy under law by way of appropriate proceedings, if so advised.

Before parting, this Court would like to make it clear that till the fresh decision is taken by the Chief Engineer (Command) in terms of this order, the interim orders passed by this Court in each and every case, if the same are subsisting as on date, shall remain in operation till a decision is taken by the Chief Engineer (Command) in conformity with the directions passed by this Court today.

All the writ petitions except WP(C) 1091/2024 shall stand disposed of along with connected CM(s)/contempt petitions in the manner indicated above.

This is an application preferred by the applicant/ petitioner seeking rectification of typographical error that has crept in the cause title of the order dated 26.09.2026 passed in WP(C) 2448/2026, wherein the name of the petitioner has been mentioned as “M/s Electromechnic Th. Partner” instead of “M/s Electromech Engineers.” 13. For the reasons stated in the application, coupled with submissions made at the Bar, the same is allowed and the title of the case in the order dated 26.09.2026, shall be read as “M/s Electromech Engineers” instead of “M/s Electromechnic.” This order shall be read in continuation to Order dated 26.09.2026.

CM is accordingly disposed of.

Main writ petition (WP(C) No. 2448/2026 shall stand disposed of in the light of the detailed order passed hereinabove, in the connected matters and shall be governed by the directions passed therein.

Learned counsel for the petitioner makes a categoric statement at the Bar that with the efflux of time, the instant writ petition has been rendered infructuous, as such, she does not want to pursue the same any further. Statement of the learned counsel is taken on record.

Writ petition is accordingly dismissed as having been rendered infructuous. Interim direction, if any, shall stand vacated.

Registry to place a copy of this Judgment on the record of each file.