S/L 10 07.08.2026 Court. No. 25 Sourav WPA 21715 of 2025 M/s. Lokenath Construction Vs. Union of India & Ors. Mr. Subhra Prakash Lahiri Mr. Priyadarsi Pramanik Mr. Abhishek Dutt … for the petitioner. Mr. Siddhartha Lahiri Ms. Sushmita Dutta Saha … for the respondents. 1. The petitioner has filed the present writ application only with the grievance that in terms of the communication made by the respondent authorities dated April 7, 2025 wherein the Executive Engineer (W)(E&M) informed the petitioner to file the application through CEMS Portal as per Clause 7.8 of the CPWD Enlistment Rules for reconsideration of the application for upgradation of the enlistment of the petitioner but the petitioner is not able to access the portal and respondents are not allowing to submit application physically. 2. Initially the petitioner has filed an application before the authority on July 30, 2024 for upgradation of the enlistment from class-III to class-II contractors. The request of the petitioner for upgradation was rejected by the authority by an order dated September 24, 2024 on the ground that the petitioner has submitted affidavit executed before the Notary Public instead of 1st Class Magistrate and the name of the proprietor in the Annexure-I is ‘Mukul Majumdar’ but in the other documents the name of the proprietor is ‘Mukul Majumder’. In the rejection order, it is mentioned that 2 enlistment application in Class-V, Buildings and Roads category is hereby rejected. 3. Subsequently, by an order dated November 11, 2024, the Executive Engineer has issued a corrigendum by correcting the class-II instead of class-V. On January 28, 2025, the petitioner has made a detailed representation for reconsideration of his enlistment as class-II from class-III contractor and in the said representation, the petitioner has categorically stated that the actual name of the petitioner is ‘Mukul Majumder’ but earlier in some documents, the name of the petitioner was recorded as ‘Mukul Majumdar’ and it has been rectified and recorded the actual name of the petitioner i.e., ‘Mukul Majumder’. Subsequently, the petitioner has further made an application on May 24, 2025 and on receipt of the application of the petitioner on May 24, 2025 the Executive Engineer has passed the impugned order. 4. The contention of the petitioner is that in terms of the letter dated April 7, 2025, the petitioner has tried to submit his application through CEMS Portal but the portal is not accepting the request of the petitioner and, as such, the petitioner has filed the present writ application. The petitioner has relied upon the Rules for Enlistment of Contractors in CPWD, 2022 dated June 21, 2022 which has come into effect on July 12, 2022 and by referring the Clause 4.4 of the said Rules submits that as per the said Rules, the application already received shall be processed as per the enlistment rules prevailing on the date of receipt of the application for the year 2022, whichever is beneficial to the applicant. For this purpose, 3 the date of receipt of the application shall be the date of diary of application or the date of online submission as recorded by the portal or the date of instrument or payment of enlistment fee, whichever is last. The fee already deposited shall be valid. 5. The petitioner has further relied upon Clause 6.2.7 wherein the table 2 with the magnitude of work experience for Building and Roads have been mentioned. The petitioner has relied upon Clause 6.3.1 wherein the Buildings and Roads category has been mentioned. By referring the said clause, the petitioner submits that as on the date of the application filed by the petitioner for upgradation of his enlistment from Class-III to Class-II, the petitioner was eligible for the said class in terms of Clause 6.2.7 and 6.3.1. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner draws attention of this Court to the Rules for Enlistment of Contractors in CPWD, 2026 which has come into effect on January 1, 2026 and submits that as per Clause 4.3, the application already received shall be processed as per the enlistment rules prevailing on the date of receipt of the application. For the purpose, the date of receipt of application shall be the seven days after the date of online submission as recorded by the CEMS/ERP portal. 7. The petitioner further draws attention of this Court to Clause 6.3.1 and submits that as per the latest minimum requirements for financial soundness-Buildings and Road category, the petitioner will not be eligible for class- II contract. 4 8. Learned counsel for the respondent authorities submits that the petitioner has not submitted an affidavit executed before the 1st Class Magistrate and there is difference in the name of the petitioner. He further submits that the authorities have rejected the application of the petitioner on September 27, 2024 and the petitioner has to file review application within 60 days but the petitioner has not filed any application. He further submits that if the rejection order was taken into consideration on November 11, 2024 wherein the authorities have issued the corrigendum, the 60 days will be completed on January 12, 2025 but the petitioner has made a representation on January 28, 2025 i.e., after the period of 60 days. He further submits that as the petitioner has made the application after the period of 60 days, it cannot be considered as review application. 9. Heard the learned counsel for the respective parties. Perused the materials on record. 10. The only contention of the petitioner in the present writ application is that in terms of the communication dated April 7, 2025 wherein the Executive Engineer (W) (E&M) informed the petitioner that the request of the petitioner will be reconsidered for enlistment if the application is received through CEMS Portal as per 7.8 of the relevant CPWD Enlistment Rules. The petitioner submits that the petitioner has tried to submit an application through CEMS Portal, the application of the petitioner is not accepting the portal and the respondents are not accepting the application of the petitioner by physical 5 mode, accordingly, the petitioner has filed the present writ application. 11. As per 7.8 of the Enlistment Rules, 2022 if the enlisting authority finds the applicant eligible for enlistment, it shall issue the enlistment order. Otherwise, it shall send a letter of rejection to the applicant. Where the application is rejected, the applicant may apply for review to the enlisting authority within 60 days of the issue of letter of rejection. The decision of the enlisting authority on the review application shall be final and binding on the applicant. 12. In the present case, the initial order of rejection was received by the petitioner on September 27, 2024. Subsequently, by a communication dated November 11, 2024 the class has been rectified instead of Class-V, it has been recorded as Class-II. The petitioner has made a representation on January 28, 2025 admittedly, after the period of 60 days as required under the Enlistment Rules. From the communication dated April 7, 2025, this Court finds that authorities have considered the application of the petitioner dated May 24, 2025 that is the much after the period of 60 days and informed the petitioner that case of the petitioner for enlistment application will be considered if the applicant files an application through CEMS Portal. 13. Thus, the act of the respondent authorities by considering the application of the petitioner dated May 24, 2025, it reveals that the respondents have condoned the delay and the authorities have considered the application dated May 24, 2025 and the directed the 6 petitioner to submit a fresh application for reconsideration through CEMS Portal. 14. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that the petitioner can submit a fresh application and the authority will consider the application if the petitioner will file a fresh application but the petitioner is apprehending that as per the latest Enlistment Rules, 2026, the petitioner will not compete with Clause 6.3.1 and, as such, the petitioner is harping with the consideration of the earlier application which is under the Rule of 2022 and the petitioner is covered under Clause 6.2.7 and 6.3.1. 15. This Court finds that the authorities have considered the application of the petitioner dated May 24, 2025 and directed the petitioner by a communication dated April 7, 2025 to file an application for reconsideration of enlistment that is much prior to the Enlistment Rules of 2026 but the petitioner could not file this application as the CEMS Portal is not accepting the application. 16. In view of the above, the petitioner is given liberty to file the application for reconsideration of the enlistment from Class-III to Class-II with all documents to the authorities in terms of the letter dated April 7, 2025 within a period of one week from this date through offline if CEMS portal is not accepting the application of the petitioner and if any application is received by the authorities within a week, the authorities shall consider the same in accordance with Enlistment Rules, 2022 and pass appropriate order within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of this order. 7 17. WPA 21715 of 2025 is disposed of. 18. This Court has not gone into the other points. The all points are kept open. As this writ petition is disposed of at the ‘Motion Stage’, no affidavit is called for, the allegations made therein are deemed to have been denied and disputed. 19. Urgent photostat certified copies of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties upon compliance with all the necessary formalities. (Krishna Rao, J.)