UNION OF INDIA AND ANR. versus AYUB ALI

Citation: [2006] SUPP. 5 S.C.R. 634 · Decided: 30-08-2006 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Disposed off

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
UNION OF INDIA AND ANR. 
v. 
AYUBALI 
AUGUST 30, 2006 
B 
(ARIJIT PASAYAT AND S.H. KAPADIA. JJ.] 
Constitution of India, 1950: 
C 
Article 226-Writ petition-Disputed questions of facts cannot be gone 
imo in Writ petition. 
Judicial discipline: 
Decision of one High Court, on identical issues, placed before concurrent 
D Bench of another High Court-Non-consideration of-Propriety of-Held: ls 
inappropriate-High Court ought to have examined whether it was in 
agreement with the view expressed in the earlier writ petition where some 
identical issues were considered. 
The respondent was a Class II Contractor registered with CPWD. The 
E authorities refused to grant revalidation of his enlistment on the ground that 
he had failed to obtain requisite marks. Feeling aggrieved, he filed Writ 
Petition on the ground that authorities had wrongly assessed his performance. 
Single Judge of High Court allowed the Writ Petition. Appellant challenged 
the correctness of the order of Single Judge, which was dismissed summarily. 
F 
G 
H 
In appeal to this Court, appellant contended that the LPA was dismissed 
summarily by the Division Bench without noticing that in a similar case 
(Amrit Lat's case*), the concerned writ petitioner was denied relief. 
Disposing of the appeal, the Court 
HELD: In Amrit Lat's case*, a Division Bench of the High Court had 
expressed views which primafacie appeared to be at variance with the view 
expressed by Single Judge. This judgment was placed before the Division 
Bench in the Letters Patent Appeal for consideration, but Letters Patent 
634 
L , 
" 
U.0.1. r. AYUBALl [!'ASAY AT.J.] 
635 
Appeal was summarily dismissed. The manner of disposal is clearly A 
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 B 
writ petitions because factual adjudication is necessary. This aspect has also 
not been considered by the Division Bench in the impugned order. 1636-D-FI 
Amrit Lal v. Union of India and Ors.* CWP No. 6463 of (2001), Delhi 
High Court Division Bench Judgment dated 1.8.2002, referred to. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 8302 of2003. 
From Judgment and Order dated 24.2.2003 High Court of Delhi at New 
Delhi in LP.A. No. 684/2002. 
A.S. Bhasme and V.K. Verma for the Appellants. 
G. Lal, D.K. Singh and Abhijit Sengupta for the Respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
c 
D 
ARIJIT PASAYA T, J. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of a 
Division Bench of the Delhi High Court dismissing the Letters Patent Appeal E 
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. 
F 
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 G 
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 
H 
636 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2006) SUPP. 5 S.C.R. 
A 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 
B 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 lear

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.