de6f92ac045028ff64dcb889164d7f51c24df4cc8df5425420813225e95ebd20

2009. A corrigendum dated 31®' October, 2010 was issued correcting the order dated 26'^'^ October, 2009. Challenging that order, the Respondent filed Writ Petition No.459/2010 which was decided vide the impugned judgment dated 1®'June, 2011. Perusal of the impugned judgment would disclose that after reading the aforesaid letters, the request of Respondent for reverification was rejected on the following grounds:- "(a) The address of the Petitioner and the address of two other concerns, which had been suspended earlier by Army authorities, were found to be same;

(i) M/s. Sangwan Enterprises (proprietor

(ii) M/s. Sangwan Trading (proprietor Jai

Prakash brother of Mrs. Roshni Devi). (b) The new address WZ-169A/5, Lajwanti Garden, New Delhi has not been verified, by civil authorities;

(c) Mrs. Roshni Devi has blood relations with Mr.

Jai Prakash, proprietor of M/s. Sangwan Trading and Mr. DPS Sangwan, proprietor of M/s. Sangwan Enterprise. Consequently, Roshni Enterprise is an allied firm of M/s. Sangwan Trading and M/s. Sangwan Enterprise, both these firms have been suspended by the army authorities." The learned Judge thereafter discussed the validity of each of these grounds and found that these are not sustainable in law. We may record at this stage that the apphcation for reverification has to be considered in the light of the Policy for Conclusion of ASC Contacts for Perishable Items dated 26'^'" September, 2006 under Chapter 2 of the Guidelines 'Registration and Re-verification of Contractors and Contract Carrying Capacity'. Para 29 of the aforesaid Pohcy inter alia reads as under:- "All firms/companies, which come within the sphere of effective influence of the banned/suspended firms/proprietorship/companies, shall be treated as allied firms. In determining this, the following factors may be taken into consideration:-

(i) Whether the management is common

(ii) Majority interest in the management is held by the partners or directors of banned/suspended firms/companies.

(iii) Substantial or majority shares are owned by the banned/suspended firms, their directors/shareholders and by virtue of this, it has a controlling voice." Clarification dated November, 2009 was issued on the aforesaid paragraph which reads as under:-, "A firm can be assigned as an allied firm only when the following three factors are present:- (a) Whether management is common. (b) Majority interest in the management of the new firm is held by partners or directors of banned/suspended firms.

(c) Substantial or majority shares of new firm is owned by the banned/suspended firms. to be just and fair, the authority in whom powers vests has to consider presence of any of the three factors mentioned above to assign a firm as allied firm. The other extraneous consideration like apphcant having relatives with persons whose firms have been banned/suspended, the applicant having legally transfer the property of the individual/relations whose firms have been banned/suspended or having common address can not form legal reasons to assign a firm as allied firm because it does not include the three factors mentioned above. The competent authority, if however, still feels that effect to influence exists in spite of the above mentioned three, factors not being present, then reasons thereof will have to be clearly mentioned before declaring the firm as alhed firm. It would also be appropriate that such reasons be assigned during the course of operation of business based on any action which is detrimental to the interest of the organization rather than based on perception." It is clear from the above that merely because, a person who is banned/suspended in relation of the apphcant, that would not be a ground to disqualify the applicant from re-verification. What is required to be seen is that whether the person whose Q firm has been banned/suspended is in a position to influence the applicant. As pointed out above, the application of the Respondent was rejected only on the ground that certain relations of the Respondent have been banned/suspended. It is for this reason the learned Single Judge set aside the impugned order. After doing so, following directions were passed:- "33. The impugned order dated 26'^ October, 2009 as clarified by the subsequent order dated 31^' October, 2009 is hereby set aside. Respondent No.3 is directed to pass an appropriate order allowing the Petitioner's request for re-verification as an ASC contractor within a period of three weeks from today." As we read the aforesaid directions of the learned Single Judge, the matter is now placed in the hands of the Appellant herein allowing the Respondent's request for re-verification. The Appellant is directed to pass an appropriate order allowing the Respondent's request for re-verification as an ASC contractor, which would mean that the Appellant is to pass appropriate orders now on the request of the Respondent for reverification as an ASC contractor. Keeping in view the aforesaid parameters and particularly the clarification given in the communication dated September, 2009, the necessary exercise which is required to be undertaken by the Appellant is to go into the question as to whether the persons who are related to the Respondent and whose firms have been banned/suspended are in position to exercise the influence over the Respondent. We thus dispose of this appeal with the aforesaid clarification namely the Appellant shall be free to pass orders after holding the enquiry into the aforesaid aspect. Appropriate orders shall be passed within three weeks. All pending applications also stand disposed of. October 03, 2011 \e^ A.K. SIKRI,J. / SIDDHARTH MRIDUL, J.