SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

2002 Supreme(Del) 1029

B.A.KHAN, J.D.KAPOOR
AMRITLAL – Appellant
Versus
UNION OF INDIA – Respondent


J. D. Kapoor

( 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 secur
















Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top