Union Of India & Anr Vs. Ayub Ali  Insc 551 (30 August 2006)
Pasayat & S.H. Kapadia Arijit Pasayat, J.
in this appeal is to the judgment of a Division Bench of the Delhi High Court
dismissing the Letters Patent Appeal filed by the appellant summarily. Writ
petition was filed by the Respondent alleging that his pre-existing enlistment
was not revalidated on erroneous premises. The writ petition was allowed by a
learned Single Judge of the High Court. The Letters Patent Appeal questioning
correctness of learned Single Judge's order was dismissed.
application for revalidation of enlistment was refused on the ground that he
did not fulfill the requisite criteria. It was indicated that on evaluation of
his performance he fell short of the required marks and, therefore, his request
for revalidation was not acceptable. Before the High Court the stand of the
respondent was that the methodology adopted in assessing his performance was
erroneous. It was denied of legitimate marks. Primarily on two grounds the
marks were denied to the respondent.
present appellants in the counter affidavit filed stated that the evaluation
was done correctly. Learned Single Judge noticed that there were two factors
for which the marks were not allotted. Firstly, it related to delay in
completion of work and secondly about the quality of work. He found that some
of the authorities had accepted that the delay in completion of work was not
attributable to the respondent and similarly certificates have been issued
about the quality of work. Accordingly, direction was given to revalidate the
respondent's registration as a Class II (B&R) contractor for a period of
five years from the date of expiry of the respondent's earlier enlistment.
support of the appeal learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the
summary disposal of the Letters Patent Appeal is erroneous. Though it was
specifically brought to the notice of the High Court that in a similar case,
the concerned writ petitioner was denied relief. Letters Patent Appeal was
dismissed by the Division Bench even without noticing the said judgment.
response, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the learned Single
Judge has analysed the factual position elaborately and, therefore, the
Division Bench was justified in summarily dismissing the Letters Patent Appeal.
find that a Division Bench of the High Court in Amrit Lal v. Union of India and
Ors. (CWP No. 6463 of 2001) by judgment dated 1.8.2002 had expressed views
which prima facie appeared to be at variance with the view expressed by learned
Single Judge. This judgment appears to have been placed before the Division
Bench in the Letters Patent Appeal for consideration; but Letters Patent Appeal
was summarily dismissed. The manner of disposal is clearly inappropriate. It
was open to the Division Bench to examine whether it was in agreement with the
view expressed in the earlier writ petition where some identical issues were
considered. But that has not been done. The two factors which went into the
evaluation process were delay in completion of the work and quality of work.
Both these aspects normally are not to be adjudicated in writ petitions because
factual adjudication is necessary. This aspect has also not been considered by
the Division Bench in the impugned order.
been brought to our notice that during the pendency of the appeal this Court
had permitted a fresh evaluation of the respondent's application for
revalidation. It is pointed out by learned counsel for the appellant that on
revaluation also the respondent was not found eligible. We do not think it
necessary to deal with that aspect presently. It would be appropriate for the
Division Bench of the High Court to hear the LPA No.684 of 2002 afresh and to
dispose it of by a reasoned order. We make it clear that we have not expressed
any opinion on merits.
is accordingly disposed of without any orders as to costs.