WPC NO.2045-2008 Page 1 13 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 2045/2008 YOGESH KUMAR AGGARWAL .... Petitioner Through Mr. Rakesh Taneja, Adv. versus UOI ..... Respondent Through Mr. Sanjeev Bhandari, Adv. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA O R D E R % 06.07.2009 Mr. Yogesh Kumar Aggarwal, the petitioner herein in 1990 was registered as class I contractor (Furniture category) with Director General of Work, Central Public Works Department (CPWD for short). The said registration was extended/provisionally extended up to 30th November, 2005. 2. The respondent CPWD in 2006 considered the revalidation application submitted by the petitioner and asked the petitioner to submit documents including Bank Solvency Certificate to the extent of Rs. 2 crores. It is admitted by the respondent CPWD that there was typographical error and as per guidelines, the petitioner was required to submit Bank Solvency Certificate to the extent of Rs. 1 crore. Subsequently on 21st September, 2007, the respondent CPWD passed an order rejecting the petitioner’s request for revalidation as class I contractor (Furniture category) on the WPC NO.2045-2008 Page 2 ground that the petitioner had failed to employ full time technical staff as per the enlistment rules, 2001. 3. The petitioner corresponded and protested but ultimately made a request for demotion to be listed as class II contractor. 4. The main grievance of the petitioner is that their application for demotion as class II contractor has not been considered by the respondent CPWD. It is also alleged that the respondents are treating the petitioner’s case as one of removal and therefore he is not eligible for being registered/demoted as class II contractor. 5. The respondent CPWD in their additional affidavit filed on 17th December, 2008 has clarified that in case of demotion to a lower class, OM No.DGW/MAN.157 dated 14th July, 2008 applies and reads as under:- “ In case, the contractor himself seeks demotion to a lower class on account of non-fulfillment of revalidation criterion, the enlisting authority of Class in which he is enlisted, on being satisfied prima- facie, of the contractor fulfilling the requirements of enlistment to a lower class, may revalidate the enlistment in the lower class for a period of one year to enable the contractor to obtain fresh enlistment in such lower class with the concerned enlisting authority.” 6. It is further stated in the said affidavit that if petitioner makes an application for registration, the same can be granted subject to the petitioner satisfying the eligibility criteria mentioned in the OM dated 14th WPC NO.2045-2008 Page 3 July, 2008. As per the said affidavit, the petitioner is required to meet following eligibility criteria:- “1. Three works of Rs. 6 lakh each required during the last five years. 2. Bankers certificate of Rs. 25 lakh (fresh certificate is to be submitted since last certificate is more than 3 ½ years old). 3. Properly fitted workshop, paints, polish & other finishing equipment (fresh verification is to be done). 7. The respondent CPWD have filed another additional affidavit on 3rd July, 2009 inclosing therewith amendment to the Rules of Enlistment of Contractors in CPWD 2005. Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner will not be registered as a class II contractor in view of the clause 4.1 of the amended rules. On the other hand, counsel for the respondent CPWD states that the said clause does not apply and he will be governed by the OM dated 14th July, 2008. He states that in case the petitioner is interested, he should make an application for demotion to class II contractor and if such application is made, the same will be considered as per OM dated 14th July, 2008. The statement is accepted and taken on record. 8. Counsel for the petitioner on instructions states that he shall be filing an application for demotion as a class II contractor (Furniture category) along with the request that the work done by him during the period 1990 WPC NO.2045-2008 Page 4 to November, 2005 may be taken into consideration for enlistment and requirement that he should have 3 works of Rs. 6 lacs each be waived as the petitioner has not been working since 2006 as the revalidation application was pending before the CPWD and was subsequently rejected. The writ petition may be disposed of but protecting the rights of the petitioner to approach the Court, if required. 9. If any application for waiver is made, the same will be considered sympathetically by the respondent CPWD. The application for registration will be disposed of expeditiously preferably within a period of 3 months from the date application is received. It is also clarified that that in case the petitioner is aggrieved by any decision of the respondent CPWD, he will be at liberty to ventilate his grievance in accordance with law. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. SANJIV KHANNA, J. JULY 06, 2009. NA/P