Disposed

Binny Xavier v. Union of India

Kerala HC18 Mar 2021WP(C)/3328/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court directed the 2nd respondent to reconsider the petitioner’s representation regarding rejection of enlistment under Rule 7.11 of Enlistment Rules, after an electronic hearing opportunity, within two months, and pass necessary orders.

What did the court decide?

Directed the 2nd respondent to consider the request for enlistment with reference to Rule 7.11 after an electronic hearing opportunity within two months.

Binny Xavier Vs Union of India — Service and Employment | Kerala HC (2021)

¶1

WP(C).No.3328 OF 2021(M)

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P.V.ASHA

¶6

THURSDAY, THE 18TH DAY OF MARCH 2021 / 27TH PHALGUNA, 1942

¶7

WP(C).No.3328 OF 2021(M)

¶8

PETITIONER/S:

¶9

BINNY XAVIER AGED 49 YEARS PROPRIETOR, BINNY ASSOCIATES, ANAMTHURUTHIL, VENNALA P.O., KOCHI 682 028.

¶10

BY ADVS. SRI.K.L.VARGHESE (SR.) SMT.SANTHA VARGHESE SRI.RAHUL VARGHESE SRI.RANJITH VARGHESE

¶11

RESPONDENT/S:

¶12

1 UNION OF INDIA, CENTRAL PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT, NIRMAN BHAVAN, MAUALNA AZAD ROAD, NEW DELHI 110 001, REP.BY ITS SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF UNION HOUSING AND URBAN AFFAIRS.

¶13

¶14

DIRECTOR GENERAL CENTRAL PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT, NIRMAN BHAVAN, MAULANA AZAD ROAD, NEW DELHI 110 001.

¶15

3 THE ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR GENERAL (REGION BENGALURU) SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER (WORKS CUM TLQA), CPWD, 2ND FLOOR, C WING, KENDRIYA SADAN, KORAMANGALA, BENGALURU 560 034.

¶16

4 EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (TLQA) OFFICE OF THE ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR GENERAL (REGION BENGALURU), CPWD, 2ND FLOOR, C WING, KENDRIYA SADAN, KORAMANGALA, BENGALURU 560 034.

¶17

5 SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER CENTRAL PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT, 4TH FLOOR, A-WING, KENDRIYA BHAVAN, KAKKANAD, COCHIN 682 037.

¶18

WP(C).No.3328 OF 2021(M)

¶19

¶20

6 EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, CENTRAL PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT, COCHIN CENTRAL DIVISION, KENDRIYA BHAVAN, KAKKANAD, COCHIN 682 037.

¶21

R1-6 BY SRI.K.SHRI HARI RAO, CGC

¶22

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18.03.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶23

WP(C).No.3328 OF 2021(M)

¶24

¶25

JUDGMENT

¶26

Dated this the 18^th day of March 2021

¶27

The petitioner is aggrieved by Ext.P15 order by which his request for enlistment under Class-IV Building category as well as Class-V Building category are rejected.

¶28

The petitioner points out that the 3^rd respondent has not considered the contentions raised by the petitioner in Ext.P14 with due application of mind and with reference to the provisions contained in the General Conditions of ContractExt.P16.

¶29

As the denial of enlistment will seriously affect the petitioner adversely it is only appropriate that the grievance of the petitioner is considered by the 2^nd respondent.

¶30

The learned counsel for the petitioner also points out that the 2^nd respondent is empowered to relax the provisions under rule 7.11 of the Enlistment Rules.

¶31

Therefore as all the grievances of the petitioner is available in Ext.P14 representation, there shall be a direction to the 2^nd respondent to consider the request of the petitioner in Ext.P14 with reference to rule 7.11 also and to pass orders

¶32

WP(C).No.3328 OF 2021(M)

¶33

¶34

after affording an opportunity of hearing through electronic mode within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment, along with a copy of the representation.

¶35

The Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly.

Sd/-

P.V.ASHA

JUDGE

rkc

WP(C).No.3328 OF 2021(M)

¶41

¶42

APPENDIX

¶43

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶44

EXHIBIT P1	TRUE COPY OF THE VALID REGISTRATION CERTIFICATE OF THE KERALA PWD WITH REGISTRATION NO.C-21/2018-19.
EXHIBIT P2	TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER OF AWARD DT. 22.6.2019 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P2 (A)	TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER OF AWARD DT. 18.11.2019 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P2 (B)	TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER OF AWARD DT. 4.12.2019 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER
EXHIBIT P2 (C)	TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER OF AWARD DT. 2.1.2020 ISSUED BY THE 6TH RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER
EXHIBIT P2 (D)	TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER OF AWARD DT. 4.1.2020 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER
EXHIBIT P2 (E)	TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER OF AWARD DT. 23.1.2020 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER
EXHIBIT P3	TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THIS HON'BLE COURT DATED 18.11.2020 IN WP(C) NO.15736 OF 2020(N)
EXHIBIT P4	TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION FOR ENLISTMENT AS CLASS IV BUILDING CONTRACTOR WITH ALLIED DOCUMENTS FURNISHED BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT BY THE PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P5	TRUE COPY OF THE CLAUSE 6.2 TO CLAUSE 6.2.5 AND ANNEXURE VII OF THE RULES FOR ENLISTMENT OF CONTRACTORS IN CPWD, 2020.
EXHIBIT P6	TRUE COPY OF LETTER DATED 14.10.2020 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P7	TRUE COPY OF REPLY LETTER DATED 15.10.2020 WITH RELEVANT ACCOMPANIMENTS, ISSUED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 4TH RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P8	TRUE COPY OF LETTER DATED 4.11.2020 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER

¶45

WP(C).No.3328 OF 2021(M)

¶46

¶47

EXHIBIT P9	TRUE COPY OF LETTER BY THE PETITIONER TO	DATED 6.11.2020 ISSUED THE 4TH RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P10	TRUE COPY OF LETTER BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT	DATED 25.11.2020 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER
EXHIBIT P11	TRUE COPY OF LETTER BY THE PETITIONER TO	DATED 2.12.2020 ISSUED THE 3RD RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P12	TRUE COPY OF LETTER BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT	DATED 8.12.2020 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER
EXHIBIT P13	TRUE COPY OF LETTER BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT	DATED 16.12.2020 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER
EXHIBIT P14	TRUE COPY OF LETTER BY THE PETITIONER TO	DATED 9.1.2021 ISSUED THE 3RD RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P15	TRUE COPY OF LETTER BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT	DATED 28.1.2021 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER
EXHIBIT P16	TRUE COPY OF THE RE GENERAL CONDITIONS OF	LEVANT CLAUSES OF THE CONTRACT OF CPWD.
EXHIBIT P17	TRUE COPY OF LETTER BY THE 6TH RESPONDEN THE PETITIONER.	DATED 5.12.2018 ISSUED T-EXECUTIVE ENGINEER TO

Binny Xavier v. Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Binny Xavier v. Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Usha Kumari K.G. Vs District Collector, Ernakulam

Dr.Nadakkalvil Mohammed Mujeeb Rahiman Vs the District Registrar (General)

Mary Premila Gomez Vs Kerala State Financial Enterprises

Xx Vs the Child Welfare Committee

P.v.Anil Kumar Vs Kerala Water Authority

Dileep Vs State of Kerala