UNION OF INDIA AND ANR.versusAYUB ALI

                                                                                      L ,
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 offacts 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         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
G        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


H                                        634
                          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.               c
          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.
                                                                                     D
          G. Lal, D.K. Singh and Abhijit Sengupta for the Respondents.

          The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

          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 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
C    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 factual position elaborately and,
     therefore, the Division Bench was justified in summarily dismissing the Letters
D    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 200 I) 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
E    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
F    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.

G.         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
H
                      U.0.1. v. AYUBALI [PASAYAT,J.]                     637
of2002 afresh and to dispose it of by a reasoned order. We make it clear that   A
we have not expressed any opinion on merits.

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

D.G.                                                    Appeal disposed of.
                                                                                B