Adverse contractor workload entries require individualized reconsideration under the prescribed policy.

The petitioners, contractors supplying services to the Military Engineering Services (MES), challenged communications or orders treating them as ineligible to participate in tenders because certain works were recorded as being in “slow progress” in Work Load Returns (WLRs).

They disputed the entries, asserting that works had been completed or substantially executed, or that delays arose from circumstances beyond their control, including site-access restrictions, the COVID-19 pandemic, post-August 2019 conditions, and matters attributable to the respondents.

Some also alleged cancellation of works despite substantial completion and non-release of claimed amounts.

Interim orders in almost all petitions had allowed the petitioners to participate in tenders, subject to the final outcome of the cases.

The respondents submitted that the matters could be disposed of by directing the Chief Engineer Command to consider each petition as a representation under the respondents’ policy governing adverse WLR remarks.

1. Whether the disputed adverse WLR entries and resulting tender ineligibility should be finally determined by the Court or reconsidered by the competent Chief Engineer under the respondents’ policy.

2. Whether the petitioners’ interim permission to participate in tenders should continue pending that reconsideration.

The Court relied on the respondents’ policy for WLR reporting, which requires show-cause notices for proposed adverse remarks to be served by the Accepting Officer by the specified deadline; the contractor’s reply to accompany the WLR; and the forwarding authority to confirm that notice was issued, a reply received, and the reply analysed before an adverse remark was recorded.

The Court also required the competent authority to consider each contractor’s case separately, in accordance with law and the policy, and to issue a detailed speaking order.

The Court noted that the petitioners’ immediate ability to participate in tenders had been protected by interim orders, but the underlying adverse WLR entries had not been finally reviewed, despite the petitioners’ claims of changed circumstances and completed works.

Because the policy prescribed a mechanism for considering adverse remarks and the respondents proposed individual administrative reconsideration, the Court concluded that each petition should be treated as a separate representation.

The Chief Engineer Command was directed to assess the workload in light of the policy, relevant facts, subsequent developments, and contemporaneous official records, and to provide a reasoned decision.

Any subsisting interim order permitting participation in tenders was to remain in force until the Chief Engineer Command made its decision; if that decision went against a petitioner, the petitioner could pursue an appropriate remedy in law.

WP(C) No. 1091/2024 was dismissed as infructuous on counsel’s statement, and any interim direction in it was vacated.

The Court also allowed the application to correct the petitioner’s name in the order concerning WP(C) No. 2448/2026 and directed that the main petition be governed by the common directions.