IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE NINTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No. 10414of 2004 Between: G. Yadagiri, S/o. G. Narayana, Aged about 43 years, R/o.H.No.4-7-454, Esamia Bazar, Hyderabad – 500 027. … Petitioner And The Director General (Works), CPWD, Room No.101, ‘A’ Wing, Nirman Bhavan, New Delhi – 110 011 and three others. … Respondents Counsel for the petitioner: Mr. B. Nalin Kumar Counsel for the respondents: Mr. A. Rajasekhar Reddy (A.S.G., Govt. of India) Order: This writ petition is filed challenging the action of the respondents in rejecting the claim of the petitioner for enlistment as Class-I (Buildings and Roads) contractor in Central Public Works Department. 2. It is the case of the petitioner, a contractor, that he submitted an application dated 21-01-2000 to the first respondent for enlistment as Class-I Contractor and though he is qualified to be enrolled; his claim was rejected by proceedings dated 12-04-2002, without recording any valid reasons. 3. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents, it is stated that as per the eligibility criteria for enlistment, one has to execute three works of Rs.60 lakh each during the last five years. It is stated that the petitioner has relied on certain works executed by him costing more than Rs.60 lakh, but when the committee of engineers inspected the works executed by the petitioner, it was found that the workmanship was of poor quality and, as such, the committee submitted its report to that effect and the recommendations of the said committee were accepted by the respondents and the petitioner is found not desirable for being enlisted. 4. Though reasons for not considering the claim of the petitioner are stated in the counter affidavit, but, the impugned proceedings do not indicate any reason whatsoever for rejection of the application of the petitioner for enlistment as Class-I contractor. It is well settled that unless reasons are contained in the very order, such reasons cannot be allowed to be supplemented by way of an affidavit. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Mohinder Singh Gill V. Chief Election Commissioner, New Delhi[1], held that when a statutory functionary makes an order based on certain grounds, its validity must be judged by the reasons so mentioned and cannot be supplemented by fresh reasons in the shape of affidavit or otherwise; otherwise, an order bad in the beginning may, by the time it comes to court, on account of a challenge, gets validated by additional grounds later brought out. 5. In the light of the above ratio decided by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and in the absence of any reason indicated in the impugned proceedings for rejection of the claim of the petitioner, I set aside the impugned proceedings and remit the matter to the respondents with a direction to examine the claim of the petitioner afresh and communicate the decision taken in this regard. However, such consideration of his claim shall be in accordance with the applicable norms. It is open to the petitioner to place before the respondents any certificates with regard to the works executed by him earlier and in such an event the respondents shall consider the same while considering the claim of the petitioner. 6. The writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated above. No order as to costs. ____________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J. October 9, 2009 MRR [1] AIR 1978 SC 851