HAPPY ELECTRICALS Vs. UNION OF INDIA
LAWS(DLH)-2007-4-250
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Decided on April 23,2007

HAPPY ELECTRICALS Appellant
VERSUS
UNION OF INDIA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.) In this writ petition, the Office Memorandum issued by the Directorate General of Works, Central Public Works Department, CSQ Organisation, Contract and Manual Unit, Nirman Bhawan, New Delhi, is impugned. Ms. Salwan, who appears on behalf of the petitioner submits that in identical circumstances in the case of M/s Alcon Builders and Engineers Pvt. Ltd., which is a Class-I electrical contractor like the present petitioner, this Court had set aside a similar impugned order and directed the respondent to revalidate the enlistment of the petitioner.
(2.) She submits that the reason given in the Office Memorandum dated 27.07.2006 for non-grant of revalidation of enlistment as a Class-I electrical contractor is identical to the reason given in the case of M/s Alcon Builders and Engineers Pvt. Ltd. The said reason reads as under:- "....................The competent authority is not fit for further revalidation as the contractor had failed to secure any work of appropriate nature and amount as required as per Enlistment Rules 2001 under Para 21(1), (ii) and (iii) during the revalidation of enlistment and provisional extension granted to the contractor." With reference to the aforesaid reasons, she submitted that revalidation has been denied on the ground that even during the provisional extension granted to the petitioner, the petitioner has been unable to secure any work of an appropriate nature and amount as required under the Enlistment Rules 2001 under Para 21(1), (ii) and (iii). She submits that this is factually incorrect inasmuch as the enlistment of the petitioner was revalidated up to 30.01.2005 and thereafter provisionally extended up to 31.07.2005. The petitioner had submitted tenders for works which were accepted on 29.03.2005, i.e, during the period of provisional extension. The quantum of the work was to the extent of Rs.35 lacs, which is far in excess of the requirement of Rs.10 lacs.
(3.) The learned counsel for the respondent could not controvert the factual position. He, however, sought to justify the Office Memorandum on some other reasons as indicated in their counter-affidavit. However, it is well settled that an order, which is passed on certain reasons, would stand or fall on those very reasons and not any other reasons.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.