SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Union of India and Another
Vs
Ayub Ali
Appeal (Civil) 8302 of 2003
(Arijit Pasayat and S. H. Kapadia, JJ)
30.08.2006
ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.
Challenge 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.
Respondent's 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.
The 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.
In 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.
In 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.
We 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.
It has 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.
Appeal is accordingly disposed of without any orders as to costs.