JUDGMENT :

Heard Shri M. H. Laskar, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Shri R. R. Gogoi, learned Standing Counsel, PHE Department. Shri S. Biswas, learned counsel has appeared for the respondent no. 5.

2. Considering the facts and circumstances and also taking into account that pleadings are complete, the instant case is taken up for disposal at the admission stage itself.

3. The challenge in this writ petition is in connection with an order dated 07.06.2023 by which the Preliminary Work Order offered to the petitioner has been cancelled. However, before going to the issue, it would be beneficial if the basic facts of the case are narrated in brief.

4. The petitioner claims to be registered Class-I (C) Contractor under the PHE Department. He had participated in a tender process in which his offer was found to be valid and accordingly issued a preliminary Work Order on 24.05.2023. The work in question was “Implementation of Kalachanpara new piped Water Supply Schemes of Dhubri Division under the programme Jal Jeevan Mission Assam”. One of the condition of the Preliminary Work Order was that performance guarantee of 5% was to be submitted. It is the contention of the petitioner that such condition was fulfilled by submission of FDR on 05.06.2023 on which date, an agreement is also claimed to have been signed between the parties. However, even before the work could be started, the impugned order has been passed on 07.06.2023 cancelling the Preliminary Work Order.

5. Shri Laskar, the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that apart from the fact that the impugned order of cancellation does not contain any reasons, the reasons which were revealed during the preliminary hearing of this writ petition also appears to be incorrect. By referring to the order of this Court dated 26.06.2023, it is submitted that there was a reference to the FDR and on being prima facie satisfied regarding the deposit of such FDR, an order of stay was also granted by this Court. The learned counsel however submits that in the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the Department on 13.09.2023 two more grounds have been sought to be taken in support of the impugned action by the Department. He submits that the two grounds are in connection with the validity of the registration and SMT score.

6. By referring to the affidavit-in-reply filed by the petitioner on 18.11.2023, Shri Laskar, the learned counsel has submitted that apart from the fact that fresh grounds cannot be taken by means of an affidavit moreso when both the impugned order dated 07.06.2023 as well as the orders passed by this Court in the initial stages of this writ petition do not reflect any such grounds, even those grounds are not sustainable in law. It is submitted that so far as the registration of the petitioner is concerned, his registration was valid up to 31.05.2023 and as per the stand of the Department itself, notice was issued for renewal of registration up to 31.07.2023 which was also extended by another month. It is submitted that well within time on 18.07.2023, the petitioner had submitted an application for renewal and for reasons best known to the Department such renewal has not been done. The petitioner was accordingly required to approach this Court by means of another writ petition i.e. WP(C) No. 5704/2023 which is pending disposal. As regards the other grounds of not meeting the SMT score as per a Standard Operating Procedure (SOP), the learned counsel by referring to the said SOP has submitted that there is an inbuilt mechanism itself regarding new contractor. As per the said Clause-E, for a new contractor, the annual turnover was to be taken into consideration vis-à-vis the value of the work in question. It is submitted that the annual turnover of the petitioner was Rs.199.96 lakhs and therefore in connection with the work in question, there was no lacking on the part of the petitioner to be eligible for allotment of such work. He submits that all these f