http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2  

CASE NO.: Appeal (civil)  8302 of 2003

PETITIONER: Union of India & Anr.

RESPONDENT: Ayub Ali

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 30/08/2006

BENCH: ARIJIT PASAYAT & S.H. KAPADIA

JUDGMENT: J U D G M E N T

ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.

       Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of a Division  Bench of the Delhi High Court dismissing the Letters Patent  Appeal filed by the appellant summarily. Writ petition was filed  by the Respondent alleging that his pre-existing enlistment  was not revalidated on erroneous premises. The writ petition  was allowed by a learned Single Judge of the High Court.  The  Letters Patent Appeal questioning correctness of learned  Single Judge’s order was dismissed.

Respondent’s application for revalidation of enlistment  was refused on the ground that he did not fulfill the requisite  criteria. It was indicated that on evaluation of his performance  he fell short of the required marks and, therefore, his request  for revalidation was not acceptable.  Before the High Court the  stand of the respondent was that the methodology adopted in  assessing his performance was erroneous. It was denied of  legitimate marks. Primarily on two grounds the marks were  denied to the respondent.  

The present appellants in the counter affidavit filed  stated that the evaluation was done correctly. Learned Single  Judge noticed that there were two factors for which the marks  were not allotted. Firstly, it related to delay in completion of  work and secondly about the quality of work. He found that  some of the authorities had accepted that the delay in  completion of work was not attributable to the respondent and  similarly certificates have been issued about the quality of  work. Accordingly, direction was given to revalidate the  respondent’s registration as a Class II (B&R) contractor for a  period of five years from the date of expiry of the respondent’s  earlier enlistment.  

       In support of the appeal learned counsel for the appellant  submitted that the summary disposal of the Letters Patent  Appeal is erroneous.  Though it was specifically brought to the  notice of the High Court that in a similar case, the concerned  writ petitioner was denied relief. Letters Patent Appeal was  dismissed by the Division Bench even without noticing the  said judgment.

       In response, learned counsel for the respondent  submitted that the learned Single Judge has analysed the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2  

factual position elaborately and, therefore, the Division Bench  was justified in summarily dismissing the Letters Patent  Appeal.

       We find that a Division Bench of the High Court in Amrit  Lal v. Union of India and Ors. (CWP No. 6463 of 2001) by  judgment dated 1.8.2002 had expressed views which prima  facie appeared to be at variance with the view expressed by  learned Single Judge.  This judgment appears to have been  placed before the Division Bench in the Letters Patent Appeal  for consideration; but Letters Patent Appeal was summarily  dismissed.  The manner of disposal is clearly inappropriate.  It  was open to the Division Bench to examine whether it was in  agreement with the view expressed in the earlier writ petition  where some identical issues were considered. But that has not  been done.  The two factors which went into the evaluation  process were delay in completion of the work and quality of  work. Both these aspects normally are not to be adjudicated in  writ petitions because factual adjudication is necessary. This  aspect has also not been considered by the Division Bench in  the impugned order.   

It has been brought to our notice that during the  pendency of the appeal this Court had permitted a fresh  evaluation of the respondent’s application for revalidation.  It  is pointed out by learned counsel for the appellant that on  revaluation also the respondent was not found eligible. We do  not think it necessary to deal with that aspect presently. It  would be appropriate for the Division Bench of the High Court  to hear the LPA No.684 of 2002 afresh and to dispose it of by a  reasoned order. We make it clear that we have not expressed  any opinion on merits.

       Appeal is accordingly disposed of without any orders as  to costs. 27998