L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J.

( 1 ) THE petitioner is a partnership firm engaged in execution of several contracts. It has been registered as a special class contractor with the 2nd respondent in the year 1988. The registration was valid for five years upto 22-7-2003. The petitioner firm has specialization in Bituminous Asphaltic highway Works. It claims to have executed works worth several hundreds of lakhs during the said period.

( 2 ) SINCE the validity of registration of the petitioner was coming to an end, it approached the 2nd respondent with an application, dated 13-5-2003 for renewal of registration. The requirements for renewal of registration are almost identical to those for fresh registration. The petitioner was under an obligation to enclose various certificates relating to experience, solvency certificate, etc. As a measure of compliance, it enclosed the solvency certificate, dated 8-3-2003 issued by the 3rd respondent-State Bank of hyderabad, Chikkadapalli Branch. The 3rd respondent indicated that the certificate cannot be construed as any financial obligation on its part. The 2nd respondent refused to take the certificate into account on the ground that it is not in conformity with the forms prescribed under G. O. Ms. No. 94, dated 1-7-2003. In view of this development, the petitioner approached the 3rd respondent with a request to issue the solvency certificate in the proforma prescribed under G. O. Ms. No. 94, dated 1-7-2003. The 3rd respondent declined to accede to the request of the petitioner, on the ground that it has been instructed by the reserve Bank of India to issue solvency certificates in a stipulated form and such a certificate had already been issued. Hence, the petitioner seeks a direction to the respondents to register it as special contractor so as to enable it to participate in the tenders for various works.

( 3 ) THE petitioner contends that the purport of any solvency certificate is only certification as to the financial ability of the person or agency and the certifying officer or agency cannot be fastened without (sic. with) any liability. It is contended that the objection raised by the 2nd (sic. 3rd) respondent for the condition incorporated by the 2nd respondent in the solvency certificate cannot be sustained in law.

( 4 ) IN the counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondents 1 and 2 it is stated that the matter relating to the tender procedure was considered by the Cabinet Sub-Committee and on the basis of the report submitted by it, the Government issued G. O. No. 94, irrigation and CAD, dated 1-7-2003, wherein it is stated that the 1 st respondent had prescribed the form of solvency certificate to be issued by banks as annexure V (b ). Respondents 1 and 2 contend that the solvency certificate issued by the 3rd respondent in favour of the petitioner is conditional and does not conform to the prescribed form.

( 5 ) HEARD the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government pleader for Irrigation and CAD.

( 6 ) THE petitioner firm was registered as a special class contractor with the 2nd respondent, with effect from 23-7-1998. The certification was valid for five years and it expired on 22-7-2003. Much before that date, the petitioner submitted an application, dated 13-5-2003 for renewal of the registration. Prior to 1-7-2003, the registration or renewal of different categories of contractors was governed by the procedure prescribed under G. O. No. 521, dated 10-12-1984 as amended from time to time. The Government reviewed the matter and on the basis of a report submitted by the cabinet Sub-Committee, it issued guidelines in G. O. Ms. No. 94, dated 1-7-2003. Though there are changes in various aspects, the requirement as to the submission of a solvency certificate virtually remained the same. The proforma prescribed in annexure V (b) reads as follows: (Enclosure to G. O. Ms. No. 94. 1 and CAD (PW-COD) Dept. dt. 1-7-2003) form of Solvency Certificate by Banks i---------------Mana

Click Here to Read the rest of this document