The objective satisfaction of the competent authority and the overall assessment of the contractor's work govern the refusal or grant of revalidation of enlistment.

( 1 ) THIS petition was dismissed by order dated 5. 4. 2002 for non-prosecution. Petitioner thereafter filed c. M. 4968/2002 for its restoration, while this application was being considered, both parties agreed for disposal of this petition on merits.

( 2 ) PETITIONER a Class-11 contractor was registered with CPWD in 1991. His enlistment was revalidated from time to time and last such revalidation ended on 28. 2. 2001. He sought its extension but respondents refused to grant it on the ground that he had failed to obtain requisite marks in terms of procedure provided for such revalidation under Office Memorandum (in short o. M. ) dated 27. 6. 1995. Feeling aggrieved he has filed this petition on the ground that respondent had wrongly assessed his performance and declined revalidation of enlistment.

( 3 ) THE procedure for revalidation of enlistment has been broadly mentioned in O. M. dated 27. 6. 1995. Under the aforesaid O. M. , a contractor is required to submit along with his application a list of all the works executed/completed or in progress which for Class-II (Bandr) contractor is Rs. 25 lakhs and above during the last five years in CPWD. He is required to secure and execute at least one work in the last five years in CPwd. The overall grading of the contractor is based on the average of marks for ail the completed works and if he secures 35 or more marks out of 100 in the overall grading, he will be entitled for revalidation of enlistment for a period of five years from the date of issue. Under the aforesaid o. M. for revalidation, the petitioner was required to secure 35 marks out of 100. which provides that there will be separate evaluation sheet for each completed work indicated by the contractor.

( 4 ) ADMITTEDLY the petitioner while submitting the application for revalidation furnished the details of work "construction of Chakkar and Administrative Block at Farm area Tihar Jail" which are as under;-

" (I) estimated cost put to tender ; Rs. 26,81,334/-

(II) gross Value of work executed : Rs. 36,93,723/-

(III) Stipulated date of commencement ; 5. 9. 1997

(IV) stipulated date of completion ; 4. 5. 1998 (8 months time))

(V) actual date of completion ; 2. 2. 2000"

( 5 ) AS is apparent, the aforesaid work was got delayed for 639 days which according to the petitioner was due to various hindrances attributable to the respondents and increase in the magnitude of the work. According to the petitioner the Executive Engineer Incharge of the work certified vide letter dated 29. 6. 2000 that though the justified delay as per hindrances register is for 660 days but the contractor took only 639 days to complete the work. The Superintending Engineer also extended the time till actual date of completion i. e. 22. 2. 2000 without levy of compensation. Thus, the grievance of the petitioner is that though petitioner being fully entitled for revalidation, the revalidation was refused illegally and arbitrarily.

( 6 ) THE petitioner has also take refuge of the formula for awarding marks under item tor . The said formula is as under:-

"parameter calculation for points score Maximum Marks time over a. . Stipulated Time" ST run= TOR actual Time = AT tor = AT/st 50 marks if TOR = 1 40 marks if TOR = 2"

( 7 ) IT appears that Mr. G. Lal, learned counsel for the petitioner has proceeded on entirely misconceived notion that the competent authority was obliged to accept the report of Assistant or Executive Engineer. The final authority for awarding the performance of the petitioner was Superintending Engineer and number of factors were to be taken into consideration while revalidating the enlistment. Some of these are TOR, quality of work, cost of work executed on reduced rates and general behaviour of contractor.

( 8 ) ADMITTEDLY the petitioner was enlisted with CPWD as Class-II Contractor in 1991. The earlier revalidation of the petitioner enlistment in 1995 was done for five years by adopting the same criteria as mentioned in memorandum