JUDGMENT : Rajarshi Bharadwaj, J. 1. The instant writ application has been preferred challenging inter alia the correctness of the letter/order dated 16.09.2021 passed by The Deputy Chief Engineer (A) herein respondent No. 2 refusing to renew the enlistment of M/s Blue Chip Consultancy Service herein the writ petitioner in Class-C, Civil Category, in DCE(A). 2. The facts of the case are that the writ petitioner No.1 registered on November 27, 2020 and enlisted under respondent authority Andaman Lakshadweep Harbour Works (herein after referred to as ALHW) was participating in various tenders floated by respondent. The ALHW is entrusted with the responsibility of formulating and implementing projects of Government for providing Ports and Harbour structures including allied facilities in Andaman and Nicobar Islands and Lakshadweep. 3. The position of petitioner No.1 by a memorandum bearing No. ALHW/DCE-1/GL-110/2017-18/Vol-1/3615 dated October 9, 2017 was upgraded from Class ‘D’ to Class ‘C’, Civil Category in DCE(A) with tendering limit up to Rs.40,00,000/- and had validity till October 08, 2022. 4. The respondent authority circulated a note dated June 12, 2018 directing all enlisted contractors to submit requisite documents to upgrade the tendering limit on or before September 01, 2018.The petitioner No.1 on October 24,2018 with the permission of respondent authority, submitted an application for renewal of enlistment for a period of five years. 5. The application of upgradation of petitioner No.1 was not processed despite subsequent verification and submission of work completion certificate. Subsequently, for being suspected in the involvement of a pending criminal case bearing FIR No.121 2019 A 0001, a show cause notice dated July 17, 2019 was issued to the writ petitioner as to why the name should not be removed from the approved list of contractors in the ALHW. The petitioner duly replied to the show cause notice on July 31, 2019. 6. The tendering limit of petitioner No.1 was ultimately upgraded to Rs.80,00,000/- only having validity up to February 6, 2021 vide memorandum bearing No. ALHW/DCE-A/DB/GL-109/2018-19/Vol-II (D)/667 dated February 7, 2020. 7. While rest of the contractors named in the list already been granted up-gradation, the inaction of the respondent authority in not renewing the order of upgradation of the tendering limit, prevented the petitioner from participating in successive tenders floated by the authorities. 8. The petitioner preferred a writ petition in this regard, being WPA No. 191 of 2021 before the Hon’ble Court at Calcutta. 8. The petitioner preferred a writ petition in this regard, being WPA No. 191 of 2021 before the Hon’ble Court at Calcutta. The writ petition was allowed vide an order dated September 08, 2021 by the Learned Single Judge and the respondent authority was directed to consider the representation of the petitioner dated September 24, 2020. 9. Following the aforesaid order, the respondent authority by an order dated September 16, 2021, considered the representation of the petitioner dated September 24, 2020 but rejected the application of the petitioner to renew the enlistment in Class-C, Civil Category, in DCE(A) on the ground of pendency of criminal case. Thus, being aggrieved by the order dated September 16, 2021, the instant writ application by the petitioner has been preferred. 10. Submissions of the Learned Counsel for the petitioners are that : I. The writ petitioner followed the procedure prescribed for enhancing the tendering unit by submitting relevant documents on time as fixed by the respondent authority. On receipt of documents, vide note dated December 04, 2018, the Deputy Chief Engineer nominated the Executive Engineer (N & S), Assistant Accounts Officer and Assistant Engineer (DB) to verify and certify the tools and plant machineries possessed by the respective classes of contractors that included the writ petitioner. The writ petitioner in furtherance submitted work completion certificate on July 03, 2019. The decision of the respondent authority to permit all enlisted contractors except the writ petitioner to participate in tenders upto their respective tendering limit despite adherence to rules is discriminating and unreasonable. II. The writ petitioner has been illegally prevented by the respondent authority from participating in ensuing tenders by violating the Rules of Enlistment. The respondent authority failed to consider the reply submitted by the writ petitioner against the show cause Notice dated July 17, 2019. The petitioner provided relevant materials to prove his innocence that was overlooked and instead of acting as the deciding authority, the respondent authority unjustly relied on the Chief Vigilance Officer and CBI for renewal of enlistment of the petitioner. III. FIR, irrespective of its seriousness cannot be a ground in terms of Rule 24.0, 24.1 and 24.2 of the Enlistment Rules. III. FIR, irrespective of its seriousness cannot be a ground in terms of Rule 24.0, 24.1 and 24.2 of the Enlistment Rules. As per Rule 24.3(k), the name of a contractor maybe removed from the approved list of contractors by the enlisting authority if the contractor is involved in complaints of serious nature received from other departments which prima facie appear to be true. 11. Submissions of the Learned Counsel for the respondents are that : I. As per Table -1 (Rules of Enlistment of Contractors in ALHW), a contractor is given provisional enlistment of one year only after the receipt of three works experiences of 16 lakhs each. On close scrutiny at the time of requisition for renewal of enlistment, the petitioner was considered for provisional enlistment for one year rather than 5 years in class “C”, civil category due to pending CBI proceedings and as the name was not cleared by the vigilance panel. II. The revalidation of the enlistment of the petitioner No.1is based on the recommendations of the Enlistment Advisory Committee revealing strict obedience to prescribed procedure. The respondent authority on noticing an FIR dated March 08, 2019 by CBI against the proprietor one Shri V. Kumaresan, petitioner No.2 involving serious corruption charges duly acted on the instruction of the Chief Vigilance Officer (ALHW) to remove the petitioner from the list of enlisted contractors. Based on Enlistment Rules and Integrity Pact, the Chief Vigilance Officer (ALHW) is the competent authority to take action for disallowing of business based on irregularities committed in connection with the execution of contract work of the ALHW. Action against the petitioner was accordingly taken as per terms and conditions stipulated under Section 3 of the Integrity Pact. 12. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the records this Court finds that the respondents by improper interpretation of the order of the Learned Single Judge, acted wrongfully preventing the petitioners from participating in the tenders. Authorities cannot go beyond the rules of enlistment. Perusal of Enlistment Rules indicates that lodging of FIR cannot be a ground for disqualification, the contractor has to carry out work satisfactorily on time and with good quality. In the instant case, no allegation has been made out against the petitioner No.1regarding the caliber of services provided. 13. A criminal case awaiting decision cannot be a ground to refuse renewal of enlistment. In the instant case, no allegation has been made out against the petitioner No.1regarding the caliber of services provided. 13. A criminal case awaiting decision cannot be a ground to refuse renewal of enlistment. Depriving the petitioner No.1from participating in subsequent tenders amounts to punishing him before the criminal case pending against him is adjudicated against him. The credibility and reliability of petitioner No.1cannot be questioned in case of unresolved criminal case. No disciplinary proceedings had been initiated against the petitioner No.1 herein for alleged involvement in the criminal case. The respondent authority proceeded without considering whether the alleged complaint of the CBI is prima facie true. Disqualification should depend on the nature and seriousness of charge and also whether it resulted in conviction or acquittal. 14. There has been an obvious defect on part of the respondent authority in refusing the petitioner’s requisition for renewal of enlistment by upgrading tendering limit. Not having heard the technical facts of the petitioner in entirety and refusing to accept material particulars submitted by petitioner, the respondent authority granted upgradation of tendering capacity to the rest of the contractors belonging to the same class. Hence, the petitioner is prevented to participate in successive tenders on improper and arbitrary grounds. 15. While considering the order of the Learned Single Judge dated September 08, 2021, the respondent authority was not entered into the merits of the case and is silent as to the involvement of the petitioner No.1 in succeeding tenders. The order/letter dated September 16, 2021 was on an erroneous reading of the order of the Learned Single Judge dated September 08, 2021 and it reveals no independent application of mind on part of respondent authority and is liable to be quashed and set aside. 16. For the reasons discussed above, the respondent authority is directed to hear the matter afresh after giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. At the time of hearing, the petitioner is at liberty to produce all necessary documents and the respondents are instructed to consider all the relevant documents to be submitted by the petitioners. The entire exercise is to be completed within three (03) months from today. 17. With the above observations and directions, the writ application is allowed. There shall, however, be no order as to costs. 18. The entire exercise is to be completed within three (03) months from today. 17. With the above observations and directions, the writ application is allowed. There shall, however, be no order as to costs. 18. Urgent Photostat certified copy of this judgment, if applied for, be given to the parties, as expeditiously as possible, upon compliance with the necessary formalities in this regard.