W.P.(C) No. 11281/2006 W.P.(C) No. 11327/2006 Page 1 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 11281/2006 CHAMPAL SINGH CHAUDHARY + W.P.(C) 11327/2006 SWAMI SARAN DASS SHARMA ..... Petitioners Through Mr. Sunil K. Jha, Advocate. versus GOVT OF NCT & ANR ..... Respondent Through CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA O R D E R % 08.12.2009 This common order will dispose of the aforesaid two writ petitions, which raise identical questions. 2. The petitioners herein were registered as class-II contractors with the Department of Irrigation and Flood Control, Government of Delhi, under the provisions of ‘Enlistment Rules 2001’. The petitioners have challenged the terms and conditions of the ‘Enlistment Rules 2005’ passed by the Review Order dated 25.7.2005. W.P.(C) No. 11281/2006 W.P.(C) No. 11327/2006 Page 2 3. The differences between terms and conditions of the ‘Enlistment Rules 2001’ and ‘Enlistment Rules 2005’ are as under: Enlistment Rules, 2001 Enlistment Rules, 2005 1. Contractor should furnish solvency certificate of Rs. 60 lacs from a notified bank. 1. Contractor should furnish solvency certificate of Rs. 2 crore from a notified bank. 2. The contractor should have completed at least three works of Rs. 25 lacs each and at least one work should be of building/bridge/masonry/ road work. 2. Contractor should have completed three works of Rs. 50 lacs each and at least two works should be building work of Rs. 0.75 crore each and one building work of Rs. 1.5 crore. 3. The contractor should have one graduate engineer and one diploma holder in his establishment, with minimum experience of three years. 3. Contractor should have one graduate engineer with minimum experience of 5 years and two diploma holders, out of which, one should have 5 years experience. 4. In the present case, the petitioners do not meet and satisfy the criteria specified in the Enlistment Rules, 2005. Counsel for the petitioners submits that the new conditions/criteria fixed in the Enlistment Rules, 2005, are arbitrary. 5. I do not find merit in the said contention. The Enlistment Rules, 2005, have fixed higher tendering limit which stands enhanced from from Rs. 1 crore to Rs. 2 crores. Modification in the eligibility norms was, therefore, required. Further, the respondents are entitled to fix eligibility norms from time to time. W.P.(C) No. 11281/2006 W.P.(C) No. 11327/2006 Page 3 Eligibility norms once fixed can be certainly amended by the respondents depending upon their needs and requirements. Higher or more stringent norms can be enacted if the respondents genuinely believe that it will ensure better compliance and speedy work. The respondents are aware of the exigencies necessitating such amendments. It is not for the Court to examine the norms fixed as an appellate forum. The respondents in their affidavit have stated that the Enlistment Rules, 2005, have been framed keeping in view the eligibility requirements adopted as per the CPWD amendments and modifications. CPWD pattern has been adopted. The norms fixed are not per se arbitrary or oppressively stringent that requires interference while exercising power of judicial review. 6. With a view to give time to the contractors to comply with the eligibility norms specified in the Enlistment Rules, 2005, the respondents by office memorandum dated 17th May, 2007, extended the time up to 31st October, 2007. Thus, the contractors including the petitioners were given time for compliance. 7. Alternatively, in case the petitioners could not meet the eligibility norms prescribed for class-II contractors in the 2005 Rules, they had the liberty to enroll and register themselves as class-III contractors. The eligibility norms W.P.(C) No. 11281/2006 W.P.(C) No. 11327/2006 Page 4 prescribed for class-III contractors was much lower as the said contractors should have executed work up to Rs. 60 lacs and were required to furnish banker’s certificate of Rs. 60 lacs. They were required to have only one graduate engineer with three years experience. 8. Counsel for the petitioner during the course of hearing submitted that the respondents permit contractors registered with other establishments to participate in tenders floated by the department of Irrigation and Flood Control, Government of Delhi. If this is correct, the petitioners have liberty to get themselves enrolled and registered with other departments and then participate in the tenders floated by the respondents. 9. Counsel for the petitioner has relied upon two judgments of this Court in Gharda Chemicals Limited Vs. Central Warehousing Corporation 118 (2005) DLT 159 and Subash Chander Gupta & Others Vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi & Others 62 (1996) DLT 510 (DB). In Gharda Chemicals Limited, a Division Bench of this Court struck down a tender condition, which stipulated that a tenderer should have manufactured ISI marked chemicals at least for three years. It was noticed that the said condition was applicable even in cases of registered contractors on the pretext that it would ensure quality of product and consistency in supplies. It was held that the said conditions had no nexus W.P.(C) No. 11281/2006 W.P.(C) No. 11327/2006 Page 5 with either consistence in supplies or quality of product as each contractor was required to supply ISI marked chemicals. It was observed that the conditions imposed in case of registered contractors adversely affected and prevented fair and competitive tender bids, as only one manufacturer could fulfill the qualification criteria. This additional term had the effect of creating monopoly and eliminating competition. The fixation of eligibility criteria was found unreasonable on the ground that it had no nexus with the object sought to be achieved i.e. quality assurance and consistency in supplies. In the case of Subash Chander Gupta & Ors., the registered contractors were required to fulfill an additional condition relating to magnitude and quantum of work undertaken by them in the past. It was held that once registration was granted, a further or a new condition was not justified. In fact in the said judgment, the Division Bench has observed that the respondent authorities can revise their policy of registration etc. and can impose qualifications/conditions for registration. 10. The aforesaid decisions therefore do not support the contention of the petitioners. Instead, autonomy and freedom of taking policy decisions of concerned authorities is well recognized. Interference from the courts is required only in cases of arbitrariness and discrimination. W.P.(C) No. 11281/2006 W.P.(C) No. 11327/2006 Page 6 In view of the above, I do not find any merit in the present writ petitions and the same are dismissed. No costs. SANJIV KHANNA, J. DECEMBER 08, 2009 NA/P