Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J. - (1.) The action of the respondent MCD in blacklisting six concerns and de-listing them from the list of contractors in terms of the impugned circulars dated 26.6.2003 has given rise to these petitions by the petitioners who have a common grievance. The rules for enlistment of contractors as prevalent in the MCD were circulated vide letter dated 7/13.8.2001 and the contractors have been enlisted in pursuance thereto in different categories and classes. The petitioners herein are registered in different classes and as per Table-I of the said rules, there are different enlisting authorities for different classes of contractors. The details in respect of the petitioners are as under: JUDGEMENT_14_DLT116_2005Html1.htm
(2.) The genus of the dispute is the notice inviting tender dated 19.8.2002 issued by the respondent in respect of the four separate works. The petitioners participated in the tender but a complaint was received by the Vigilance Department alleging Pooling in respect of the said tender.
(3.) The original records have been produced and perused in respect of the process of this vigilance inquiry which was started in pursuance to a complaint received on 21.8.2002 during public hearing and it was alleged that due to mala fide intention and corruption in the office of the Executive Engineer, huge financial loss was being caused to the respondent Corporation. The sale of tender (NIT No.18) took place on 21.8.2002 and it was alleged that a number of contractors who approached the officer were not allowed to purchase the tender and only 6 or 7 selected contractors were permitted to purchase the tenders with a direction to quote their rates in favour of M/s. Aar Gee Constructions, M/s. Vinay Goel, M/s. Vinay Goel and M/s. Aar Gee Construction, item wise (1) (2) (3) and (4) respectively. It is also stated that Aar Gee Construction and M/s. Om Prakash Mittal are sister concerns and both have purchased tender Nos. 1 and 4 so that any of these can get tender in their favour instead of only one firm. On the complaint being made, the matter was investigated and the lowest bid item wise was found in favour of the following contractors: JUDGEMENT_14_DLT116_2005Html2.htm;