AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Sanjiv Khanna, J.—The petitioner Roshni Enterprises impugns letter/order dated 4th March, 2008 rejecting petitioner''s request for re-verification dated 14th December, 2006 received in the office of Headquarter, Western Command, on 4th March, 2008.
The petitioner was registered as ASC contractor from January, 2002 to January, 2007. Thereafter, the petitioner applied for re-verification vide application dated 14th December, 2006. As per the stand of the respondent- Western Command, Indian Army, the application for re-verification should have been filed six months before the expiry of the last date of registration.
The impugned order/letter dated 4th March, 2008 rejecting the petitioner''s application for re-verification gives three reasons:
(a) Your firm is an allied firm of M/s DPS Sangwan and M/s Sangwan Trading which have been suspended. Since suspension is extendable to allied firms, re-verification of your firm can not be completed.
(b) Your case for re-verification has not been recommended by HQ Delhi Area being allied firm of a/m firms.
(c) Affidavit given by you regarding sole proprietorship of m/s Roshni Enterprises is not matching with report of Dy Commissioner of police wherein it is stated that Sh. DPS Sangwan and Smt Roshni Devi are directors of M/s Roshni Enterprises. This tantamounts to production of incorrect affidavit. Photocopy of Dy Commissioner, Special Branch Delhi report No. 9201/CV-II/CVR/SB, dated 06 Sep 2007 is attached for ready reference.
However, your case for re-verification may be re-considered only after revocation of suspension order of M/s DPS Sangwan & M/s Sangwan Trading.
This is without prejudice and any constraints.
Reason No. (c) states that Roshni Enterprises as per the report submitted by Deputy Commissioner of Police was a joint firm of M/s DPS Sangwan and Ms. Roshni Devi and not as sole proprietorship concern of Ms. Roshni Devi. The said statement has been made on the basis of report dated 6th July, 2007 given by Deputy Commissioner of Police, Special Branch, Delhi. The petitioner along with the writ petition has filed letter dated 10th January, 2008 written by Deputy Commissioner of Police, Special Branch, Delhi to the Army Authorities confirming that M/s Roshni Enterprises is functioning from the address given in the application since November, 2006 and Ms. Roshni Devi is the proprietor of the firm and nothing adverse has been found against her. By letter dated 17th January, 2008 Headquarters, Delhi Area informed Headquarter, Western Command that Ms. Roshni Devi is the proprietor of the firm, and nothing adverse was found as per the police report. There appears to be a contradiction between the earlier report of the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Special Branch, dated 6th September, 2006 and the subsequent reports as per letter dated 10th January, 2008. However, the said aspect has not been examined in the letter/order dated 4th March, 2008. In fact the said letter/order does not make a reference to this letter dated 10th January, 2008 written by Deputy Commissioner of Police, Special Branch, Delhi and the communication dated 17th January, 2008.
Learned Counsel for the petitioner further submits that the respondents did not confront or allege that Roshni Enterprises was an allied firm of M/s DPS Sangwan and M/s Sangwan Trading. It is accordingly pleaded that the petitioner was not afforded an opportunity to explain and contend that M/s Roshni Enterprises was not an allied firm of M/s DPS Sangwan or Sangwan Trading. Learned Counsel for the respondent, however, has drawn my attention to para 29 Sub-clause (d) of the Procedure for Conclusion of ASC Contracts, which defines the term allied firms as under:
(d) All firms/companies, which come within the sphere of effective influence of the banned/suspended firms/proprietorship/companies, shall be treated as allied firms. In determining this, the following factors may be taken into consideration.
Learned Counsel for the respondent contends that M/s DPS Sangwan was a sole proprietorship concern of the husband of Ms. Roshni Devi and M/s Sangwan Trading is the sole proprietorship concern of brother of the petitioner Ms. Roshni Devi and all three firms had given the said address. Learned Counsel for the petitioner, however, submits that this is factually incorrect and the three firms were/are operating from separate addresses.
In view of the aforesaid factual position and as order/letter dated 4th March, 2008 does not refer to the subsequent report of the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Special Branch, Delhi dated 10th January, 2008 and the letter dated 17th January, 2008, I feel the matter has to be remitted back to the respondent authorities to decide the re-verification application. In these circumstances, I also refrain from making any observation whether or not the petitioner is an allied firm under para 29(d) of the aforesaid procedure. I refrain and do not give any finding in this regard as that the petitioner has submitted that he was never confronted with the aforesaid objection. As the matter is being remitted back for fresh decision, the question of allied firms can be also examined by the respondent authorities.
The petitioner is given liberty to file additional documents along with a supporting affidavit with the respondents within three weeks. In case they reject the petitioner''s request for re-verification, the speaking order will deal with the letter issued by Deputy Commissioner of Police, Special Brach, Delhi dated 10th January, 2008 and the letter dated 17th January, 2008. They shall also deal with the question of allied firms and the contention of the petitioner. The re-verification application will be disposed of within a period of one month after the petitioner files his affidavit in term of the order passed today. The order dated 4th March, 2008 is set aside. The petitioner will be at liberty to seek redressal of grievance in case of an adverse order.
The writ petition is disposed of. No costs.
DASTI to both the parties.