IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR

AT SRINAGAR

WP(C) No. 437/2020

CM No. 879/2020

Reserved on: 11^th of May, 2021.

Pronounced on: 21^st of May, 2021.

Abdul Qayoom Dar

….. Petitioner(s)

Through: -

Mr Manzoor Ahmad Dar, Advocate.

V/s

Chief Engineer (NZ-V), CPWD, Satwari, Jammu & Ors.

….. Respondent(s)

Through: -

Mr Tahir Majid Shamsi, ASGI.

CORAM:

Hon’ble Mr Justice Ali Mohammad Magrey, Judge.

(JUDGMENT)

01.

In this Petition, the Petitioner has prayed for the grant of

following relief(s) in his favour:

“(a) Quashing of the communication dated 21.1.2019

issued vide No. 23(o4)-5/2018/19 /1752 issued by respondent

No.1 (Anncxure-1) in terms whereof the petitioner has been

debarred from tendering or taking part in CPWD, MOEF PWD

Govt of Delhi etc. for a period of three years with effect from

date of the communication/order;

(b) Declaring the communication aforesaid as being

illegal, inoperative, null and void on account of being in

violation of the settled legal principles; and

(c) Any other writ, order or direction which this court

may deem fit in the facts and circumstances attendant to the

case be passed in favour of the petitioner so as to meet the ends

of justice.”

Page 2 of 9

WP(C) No. 437/2020; CM No. 879/2020

02.

Sans details, the background facts leading to the filing of the

Petition on hand, as stated by the Petitioner in his Petition, are that the

Petitioner claims to be an “A” Class Contractor registered under the

Contractors Registration Act, besides being second generation Civil

Contractor associated with the execution of various construction projects

involving the Respondent-Central Public Works Department (for short

‘CPWD’) for the last four decades. It is stated that the average turnover of

the Petitioner insofar as it pertains to the execution of works of the CPWD

ranges from Rs.10 to 15 Crores per annum. It is pleaded that certain disputes

arose between the Petitioner and the Respondent Department in relation to

various contract matters which were referred to Arbitrators, either appointed

by the Respondent Department itself or upon seeking intervention of the

Court in terms of Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act. The

Petitioner has further proceeded to state that on account of pendency of

multiple arbitration matters between the parties, the Respondent Department,

in order to inflict punishment upon the Petitioner, tried to find out ways and

means to stop the Petitioner from participating in the tendering process

initiated by the Respondent Department for execution of various contracts,

one such instance being issuance of notice dated 23^rd of October, 2018

bearing No 23(04)/2018/BSF/1251, asking the Petitioner to show case as to

why he should not be debarred from taking up any work in CPWD, MOEF,

PWD (Government of Delhi), etc., all over India. This show cause notice is

stated to have been issued in reference to: i) construction of Airbase,

including provision for Cabin/Helicopter Hanger at BSF Campus,

Humhama, Srinagar, Kashmir alleging that the flooring work of Helicopter

Page 3 of 9

WP(C) No. 437/2020; CM No. 879/2020

Hanger was found sub-standard on account of poor workmanship; ii)

construction of Trainers Training Hostel/ Farmers Hostel Block at CITH,

Rangreth, Kashmir with the allegation that the subject building was not

taken over by the concerned Department on account of non-rectification of

the defects; and iii) submission of false documents at the time of tendering

qua mismatch in date of renewal shown by two Executive Engineers of the

State department. This show cause notice, as stated, was replied by the

Petitioner vide communication dated 9^th of November, 2018, whereby all the

points/ issues raised by the Respondent Department were clarified/ answered

by the Petitioner in detail. Notwithstanding the reply submitted by the

Petitioner to the show cause notice