Vinay Goel v. MCD

1. The petitioners are aggrieved by the Circular dated 23.9.2011 issued by the respondent/MCD, removing their names from the approved list of contractors of MCD on account of non-execution of contracts in 12 cases within the stipulated period of time. I 2. Counsel for the petitioners states that the petitioners received > notices to show cause dated 23.3.2011 from the respondent/MCD (Annexure P-45) calling upon them to show cause within 7 days as to why action as envisaged in Clause 23.[3] of the Enlistment Rules, be not taken against them on account of breach of the said Rules. He Lubmits that the aforesaid show cause notices were duly replied to by 2011:DHC:15941 the petitioners, vide letters dated 26.3.2011 (Annexure P-46). However, in the meantime, ex parte injunction orders were passed in favour of the petitioners in civil suits filed by them in the District Court, for injunction and declaration against the respondent/MCD, which orders came to be ultimately vacated, vide order dated 7.9.2011 (Annexure P-44). Thereafter, the respondent/MCD issued notices dated 19.9.2011 (Annexure P-48) affording an opportunity of personal hearing to the ^oarties, before the Enlistment Committee on 22.09.2011. After receiving the aforesaid notices dated 19.9.2011, the petitioners submitted their replies on 22.9.2011 (Annexure P-49), informing the respondent/MCD that they would not be in a position to attend the meeting scheduled to be held on that date, as they were required to be present in the Rohini Courts in respect of some criminal case fixed on the same date and further, seeking another date for the meeting.

3. It is the case of the petitioners that despite the aforesaid representations, duly received by the respondent/MCD, it proceeded to pass the impugned order/Circular dated 23.9.2011, removing the names of the petitioners from the approved list of contractors of the MCD, thus depriving them of an opportunity of hearing.

4. Notice. Counsel for the respondent/MCD accepts notice and W.Ps.(C) 7461/2011 & 7462. V states at the outset that the present petitions are not maintainable as disputed questions of facts are involved and the remedy of the petitioners lies elsewhere. However, as far as the grievance of the petitioners with regard to failure on the part of the respondent/MCD to adjourn the meeting from 22.9.2011, to a subsequent date to enable them to make their submissions before the Enlistment Committee is concerned, she states that without prejudice to the rights and contentions of both the parties, the respondent/MCD is still ready and willing to grant a hearing to the petitioners before the Enlistment \ Committee, if a date and time in that regard is fixed by this Court.

5. Counsel for the petitioners states that he has no objection to the aforesaid suggestion and the petitioners will be present before the Committee, on the date and time as fixed.

6. Accordingly, the impugned Circular dated 23.9.2011 is quashed and the present petitions are disposed of with directions to the petitioners to appear before the Enlistment Committee of the MCD on 19.10.2011, at 11.00 AM. The petitioners shall be at liberty to take all A the pleas as may be available to them before the aforesaid Committee and they may rely on the documents, which are considered necessary for supporting their submissions. Thereafter, the Committee shall pass speaking orders, under written intimation to the petitioners. In case fit the petitioners are aggrieved by the orders that may be passed by the respondent/MCD, they shall be entitled to seek recours,e to their remedies as per law.

7. The petitions are disposed of,, along with the pending applications. DASTI.

OCTOBER 14,7011 Sk HIMA KOHLI,J M