AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Sunil Kumar Sinha, J.—The petitioners have challenged the validity of order dated 22-3-2011 (Annexure P/1), by which, the registration of petitioner No. 1 as A-5 Contractor with the Public Works Department has been cancelled with immediate effect. Petitioner No. 1 was registered as A-5 Contractor with the Public Works Department. It was awarded the work for construction of road (Sargaon-Panchariya) length 20.06 Kms. The aforesaid construction was completed on 30-6-2009. The Chief Engineer, after more than a period of one year of the completion of work, i.e. on 1-10-2010, inspected the road and found it to be in bad condition. Thereafter, a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner on 24-2-2011, making categorical statement that on the above account why the registration of the petitioner may not be cancelled under Appendix 3 of circular No. 7652/9697/19/YO/ 99 dated 19-11-1999, issued by the Public Works Department.
Shri B.P. Sharma, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner drew our attention towards Appendix-3 (page No. 46 of the paper-book). His submission is that even if all the facts mentioned in the show cause notice and the impugned order are admitted, Clause (i) of Appendix-3 would not be made applicable, therefore, the cancellation based on the said clause is without jurisdiction.
On the other hand, Shri A.S. Kachhawaha, learned Dy. Advocate General appearing on behalf of the State opposed these arguments and supported the impugned order dated 22-3-2011.
We have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and have also perused the records of the writ petition.
Admittedly, the action has been taken under Clause (i) of Appendix 3 of the above circular. Clause (i) of Appendix 3 reads as under:--
APPENDIX-3
CANCELLATION OF REGISTRATION
Registration of a contractor/firm may be cancelled by the registering authority if:--
(i) Contractor''s/firm''s last 3 years performance shows that he is in the habit of leaving the works incomplete, seeking extension without any valid reason and raising claims on flimsy grounds or fails to participate in tendering process.
A perusal of the aforesaid Clause would show that the cancellation would be effected when the Contractor is in habit of leaving the work incomplete or seeking extension without any valid reason and raising claims on flimsy grounds or he/it fails to participate in tendering process.
Admittedly, none of these conditions are there in the case of the petitioners. The contents of the show cause as also the impugned order would show that the petitioners have completed the subject work on 30-6-2009. Therefore, there are no allegations of leaving the work incomplete. It is also not a case of extension without any valid reason or of raising claims on flimsy grounds or of failing to participate in tendering process.
Shri A.S. Kachhawaha has argued that since the quality of work was not good and the bills were paid to the petitioners, it shall amount to claiming the bills on flimsy grounds. The above argument cannot be accepted on the basic principle that there must be some decision on the point. Unless there is some decision on the points raised as allegations against the Contractor, it cannot be said that the Contractor has realized the bills on flimsy grounds. Therefore, the above contention has to be rejected.
Since the provisions of Clause (i) of Appendix 3 are not attracted in this matter, the cancellation based on such clause, cannot be sustained.
For the foregoing reasons, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 22-3-2011 (Annexure P/1), by which, the registration of petition No. 1 as A-5 Contractor has been cancelled is quashed. No order as to cost(s).