HIGH COURT OF CHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
Writ Petition C No 1087 of 2010
Barbrik Project Limited
...Petitioners
Versus
1 State of Chhattisgarh
2 Chief Executive Officer
3 Chief Engineer
4 M L Haldkar
...Respondents
! Shri Ankit Pandey counsel for the petitioner
^ Shri Yashwant Singh Thakur Deputy Advocate General for the State
CORAM: Honble Shri Dhirendra Mishra & Honble Shri R N Chandrakar JJ
Dated: 05/10/2010
: Judgement
O R D E R
(Passed on 5th October, 2010)
The following order of the Court was passed by Dhirendra
Mishra, J.
1. The petitioner has filed the instant petition and prayed
for quashing of the order dated 6th February, 2010 (Annexure-
P/1) whereby the petitioner’s registration as a contractor in
S-5 category in the Chhattisgarh Rural Road Development Agency
(hereinafter referred to as `the CGRRDA’) has been cancelled.
2. Briefly stated, the petitioner’s case is that M/s Bajrang
Lal Agrawal, a partnership firm, was registered as S-5
contractor with the respondent CGRRDA since 2000. With the
passage of time the business of the firm grew. Considering
the same, almost all the partners of the firm decided for
external expansion by incorporating a company limited by
shares in the name and style of M/s Barbrik Project Limited in
the year 2008 and accordingly, the petitioner was incorporated
in the year 2008 and the certificate of incorporation was
issued by the Registrar of Companies on 7th April, 2008 and
the Company commenced the business w.e.f. 2nd May, 2008.
3. The petitioner vide its resolution dated 2nd May, 2008
took over the entire business of M/s Bajrang Lal Agrawal as a
going concern (Annexure-P/6) and an agreement was entered into
between M/s Bajrang Lal Agrawal and the petitioner company
vide Annexure-P/7. By virtue of the agreement, the petitioner
succeeded the business of M/s Bajrang Lal Agrawal along with
its assets and liabilities. M/s Bajrang Lal Agrawal firm was
dissolved w.e.f. 2nd May, 2008 vide deed of dissolution dated
2nd may, 2008 (Annexure-P/9) and the same was communicated to
the Assistant Registrar, Firms and Organizations on 12th July,
2008 (Annexure-P/10).
4. CGRRDA as also other Government departments allowed the
petitioner’s application for registration as contractor in
their department and issued registration certificate. The
petitioner was duly registered as S-5 contractor with CGRRDA
(Annexure-P/15), however, respondent No.4 issued show cause
notice (Annexure-P/16) to M/s Bajrang Lal Agrawal on 7-8-2009
contemplating cancellation of the registration of the
petitioner for merging with the petitioner’s company without
permission from the CGRRDA. The petitioner replied to the
above show cause notice vide Annexure-P/17 dated 18th August,
2009. The petitioner was again served with a notice dated
14th October, 2009 calling upon him to show cause as to why
his registration as S-5 category contractor should not be
cancelled, which was replied vide Annexure-P/19. However,
after issuing another notice dated 11-11-2009, CGRRDA,
respondent No.2, cancelled the registration vide impugned
order of Annexure-P/1.
5. Shri Ankit Pandey, learned counsel appearing on behalf of
the petitioner, submitted that the petitioner’s registration
as S-5 contractor has been erroneously cancelled on the ground
that it did not have experience of its own for claiming
registration with the CGRRDA and the registration is claimed
on the basis of experience of Director or partner of the
petitioner’s company whereas, the petitioner applied for
registration on the basis of its own experience, as the
petitioner vide its resolution dated 2nd May, 2008 has taken
over the business of the firm as a going concern and the
registration certificate was granted to the petitioner by
respondent No.3 by accepting merger of M/s Bajrang Lal Agrawal
with the petitioner with all the contracts and the work in
hand vide Annexure-P/15. From the note sheets of the
respondents, which have been filed by the petitioner along
with his rejoinder as Annexure-P/23, it would be evident that
the respondents after considering that M/s Bajrang Lal Agrawal
has merged in the petitioner company recommended for
registration as S-5 category contractor and the same has been
accepted by the Chief Engineer of the CGRRDA and the
registration certificate of S-5 contractor has been issued.
From the document of Annexure-P/15, it would be evident that
his registration could be down-graded, cancelled or suspended
only as per clauses 2.097, 2.100, 2.101 & 2.102 of the Works
Department Manual, 1983.
6. On the other hand, Shri Yashwant Singh Thakur, learned
Deputy Advocate General for the State would submit that M/s
Bajrang Lal Agrawal was registered as S-5 category contractor
with RES whereas CGRRDA came into existence on 1-2-2003 and
the rules regarding registration of contractor with CGRRDA
came into force w.e.f. 27-1-2006. Even otherwise, M/s Bajrang
Lal Agrawal entered into agreement with the petitioner company
without seeking permission from the authorities of the CGRRDA.
The petitioner has averred in the petition that M/s Bajrang
Lal Agrawal has merged with the petitioner and the same stands
dissolved w.e.f. 2nd May, 2008 (Anneure-P/9). However, the
predecessor firm is still carrying on the construction work
out of total works awarded to M/s Bajrang Lal Agrawal. 166
works were awarded to the said firm, 136 roads have been
completed but the work of 40 roads is still going on. The
firm has further agreed to maintain those roads for a further
period of 5 years. If the firm has received payment for their
works from the answering respondents, it makes the documents
filed by the petitioner suspicious. CGRRDA in the meeting of
its Executive Committee held on 27-1-2006 prescribed the
procedure for registration of the contractors of CGRRDA
(Annexure-P/22). As per the document of Annexure-P/22 for
registration of S-5 category contractor, the contractor should
have work experience in his own name and the experience of the
Director/Partner of the Company/Firm could not be considered
as experience of the company.
7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties.
8. Indisputably, after incorporation of the petitioner
company and after agreement with M/s Bajrang Lal Agrawal, the
petitioner applied for registration with the respondents along
with necessary deposits. His application was duly processed
by the respondents, as would be evident from the document of
Annexure-P/23. The petitioner claimed registration as S-5
category contractor on the ground that M/s Bajrang Lal Agrawal
has merged in the company, showing the work experience of
predecessor company as its own, the same was duly accepted and
the registration certificate of Annexure-P/15 was issued. The
above fact has not been controverted by the respondents.
9. From perusal of the documents of Annexure-P/15, it is
clear that the registration could be down-
graded/cancelled/suspended as per clauses 2.097, 2.100, 2.101
and 2.102 of the Works Department Manual, 1983, (Para-1). It
is not the case of the respondents that the certificate of
registration has been cancelled for breach of any of the above
clauses. Even otherwise, after examining the above
provisions, we find that the same does not provide for
cancellation of the contract on the grounds on which the
registration of the petitioner has been cancelled.
10. On due consideration of the documents annexed with the
petition and further considering that the respondents after
accepting the contention of the petitioner that M/s Bajrang
Lal Agrawal has merged with the petitioner and treating the
experience of predecessor as the experience of the petitioner,
registered the petitioner as contractor of S-5 category, we
are of the opinion that the respondent No.4 was not justified
in canceling the registration certificate by referring to the
order of Annexure-P/22 which was very much in force even at
the time when the certificate of registration was issued to
the petitioner by respondent No.4.
11. In the result, the writ petition is allowed and the
impugned order dated 6-2-2010 (Annexure-P/1) passed by
respondent No.4 is quashed.
J U D G E