Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2
CASE NO.:
Appeal (civil) 8302 of 2003
PETITIONER:
Union of India & Anr.
RESPONDENT:
Ayub Ali
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 30/08/2006
BENCH:
ARIJIT PASAYAT & S.H. KAPADIA
JUDGMENT:
J U D G M E N T
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
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2
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.
27998