Full Text
HIGH COURT OF DELHI o/o Date ofJudgment:23.01.2017
W.P.(C)11780/2015
HARINDER SINGH. Petitioner
Through Ms.Anusuya Salwan and Mr.Abhishek. aPundir,,Advocates.
,<i?vQrsh§|A? ^ ® .r . « /V NORTH # %s ! ir £ ^ coramI
HON'BLlMS.JUSTICEI]||]a||flETKAUR TNDERMEET f 1|§
For0%s|;-#eS|ofW?(e)'Ni).
A AAAV '"A / A/
5%, "A«..' lUAif2i1tt '-"A il -•tA"'
INDERMEET KAUR,J L^L'iSi'Al JANUARY 23,2017 A
2017:DHC:8347 X $-6to 41,43 to 47&58 HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Date ofJudgment:23.01.2017 ' W.P.(C)10055/2015
Gli^^^AMDASS Petitioner
Through Ms.Anusuya Salwan and Mr.Abhishek
,^„^.,4^-Rundh:,J^dvocates.
,;^>vei:sus\ lX'4' X NORTHD^lWMOTALCORPOj^TTOJT, .X Respondent
7' T, ,,.j. \ f 7;.;: Through Mr.Sunil Goel, Stahdihg Counsel for
North DMC with Ms.Siipreet Bambfa, / / n Advocate. I
V'i ''"vVU 1% 'f' petitioner W.P.(C)fp008/2015 IJX
RAKESH .....4 v, •^.Thfoiigh,,,^ Ms.AnusuyavSM'wah and Mr.Abhishek
'■''i;..' RunxlifuAdvbcates.
Through Mr.Sunil Goel, Standing Counsel for North DMC with Ms.Supreet Bambra, Advocate.
2017:DHC:8347 f
•V
\
Through Ms.AnusuyaSalwan and Mr.Abhishek Pundir,Advocates.
Through Mr.Sunil Goel, Standing Counsel for North DMC with Ms.Suprret Bambra, Advocate.
NISHANT T AL Petitioner ->Tftr&ugh j^^imAnusuya^aly/m^nd Mr.Abhi
NORTH6bLHIMUNICIPi^-COj^ORATION R|spondent V,U> II n M y\, . |;|
Through''.':Ml|||il Goel, Standii^ Counsel for
,r' ; -'VNorth^MQ^w^ith Ms.Slp^^^^ Advocke.-^
'V- A W.P.(C)10032/20hA:_ CHIRAC ALUDEEN^ ' J ^ Petitioner
Through Ms.Anusuya Salwan and Mr.Abhishek Pundir,Advocates.
Through Mr.Sunil Goel, Standing Counsel for 2017:DHC:8347
. W.P.(C)10033/2015 BRAHAM PRAKASH Petitioner
Through Ms.Anusuya Salwan and Mr.Abhishek Pundir,Advocates.
Through Mr.Sunil Goel, Standing Counsel for with Ms.Supreet Bambra, 1,£^0Gate,;;\, 'A' ■"» >'>
'•v-f V '' ■' 'i>.
W.P.(C) 1004^/2015 ^ "''J' .{ '--vd!'!; 'y LAXMINARA^ GUPTA;/?LC'-<11|^ Petitioner
/' "N "'di «
Through Ms.Anusuya Salwan anc|Mr.Abhishek / Pundir, Advocates. i
A-- - !;' M NORTHDELHIMUNIC3ip^;gg^^|A14^ 'A^^^^Thlou^.,, IV^Shmil Counsel for
;,5, Noi?|M'''®||lC'withMs.Supreet Bambra, W.P.(C) 10051/2015
. RANBIR SINGH Petitioner
Through Ms.Anusuya Salwan andMr.Abhishek Pundir, Advocates.
Through Mr.Sunil Goel, Standing Counsel for North DMC with Ms.Supreet Bambra, Advocate.
ANIL KUMAR BHARDWAJ Petitioner
Through Ms.Anusuya Salwan and Mr.Abhishek Pundir,Advocates.
' North DMC with I^:Si|prret Bambra, Advocate.
KUSUM Petitioner
Through Ms.Anusuya;Salwan?and Mr.Abhishek
''■V -t v"?;--r'rT'Rund;ir,,i^dyQGit versus-^
NORTHDELHIMUNICIPAL CORPORATION Respondent
Through Mr.Sunil Goel, Standing Counsel for NorthDMC with Ms.Supreet Bambra, Advocate.
2017:DHC:8347
Through Ms.Anusuya Salwan and Mr.Abhishek Pundir,Advocates.
Through Mr.Sunil Goel, Standing Counsel for North DMC with Ms.Supreet Bambra, Advocate.
ANURAG RANA _ •; s,,/
| Petitioner ./Through hMkAnusuyh'%Aya%and Mr.Abhishek f "' , Pundir,Advocates/ h, ;?■ ■ 'l- -V-
I^Pi1h.EMP/A4th Ms.Supreet Barnbra, W.P.(C) 10064/2015 ' „
JASWANT SINGH ' Petitioner
Through Ms.Anusuya Salwan andMr.Abhishek Pundir, Advocates.
Thi-ough Mr.Sunil Goel, Standing Counsel for 2017:DHC:8347
\
Through Petitioner Ms.Anusuya Salwan and Mr.Abhishek
Pundir,Advocates.
Through Mr.Sunil Goel, Standing Counsel for ^ ,,irt?«-^'"N0rfe;]DM with Ms.SupreetBambra, 4 l/AdvoQ'ate„
W.P.(C)1101J/204..5 . r;T'Ni AMLKUmM-?' <«|> ".j, Nf•••petitioner
Through.,LL2^^ Salwan anc^Mr.Abhishek . Tundiir, Advocates. I
.Through,,^ Iv^J§pnir Gb^^^'Stahding Counsel for
AbU'^'Norli:!)!^ Ms.Supreet Bambra, ""'-wai.,,,.-.y.Hdvo.catCv"
RAVINDER KUMAR Petitioner
Through Ms.Anusuya Salwan and Mr.Abhishek Pundir, Advocates.
„ ______ _ /f
\-> A
Through \ Mr.Sunil Goal, Standing Counsel for
North DMC with Ms.Supreet Bambra, Advocate.
GURMUKH BHARDWAJ Petitioner
Through Ms.Anusuya Salwan and Mr.Abhishek Pundir,Advocates.
Mr.Sunil Gdei;.,.Standing Counsel for North'.piMC withfMs.%upreet Bambra, Advocate. \
W.P.(C)|l028/2015 f [4 ')' i AMITSEHRAWAT ]
| r:
>; - Petitioner
•' -r'-AY N-a h-
.JK 7, T'hrpugh;;n 'r n 1' MslAT^uya5%lwana^Mr.Abhishek
;7-Puhdiif, Adydbatesj? 'N.'"vefsus= n 7 / " V ,.""T'
NORTH DELHI TCpfi^^ Respondent
Through Mr.Sunil Goal, Standing Counsel for North DMC with Ms.Supreet Bambra, Advocate.
VIDYA DEVI Petitioner 2017:DHC:8347
Through Mr.Sunil Goel, Standing Counsel for North DMC with Ms.Supreet Bambra, Advocate.
" NARESH ^ OAr Petitioner L' "-Mhrougli s4w;an^^d Mr.Abhishek
V' ■' Pundir, Advocates, %
I i'k vL. i-f I Vi .'TU A''L.v.v >4.): hA^-5 _ li 1 r»
JUDGMENT
1 Throu^'';fMLfffiil Goel, Standi^ Counsel for ' Advocate. + W.P.(C) 11449/2015 ATUL GUPTA - Petitioner Through Ms.Anusuya Salwan andMr.Abhishek Pundir, Advocates.
VERSUS
NORTHDELHIMUNICIPAL CORPORATION Respondent Through Mr.Sunil Goel, Standing Counsel for 2017:DHC:8347 9f \ + W.P.(C)11471/2015 n Petitioner n SANJAY Through Ms.AnusuyaSalwanand Mr.Abhishek Pundir,Advocates.
VERSUS
NORTHDELHIMUNICIPALCORPORATION Respondent Through Mr.Sunil Goel, Standing Counsel for,^rcct^ucMo with Ms.SupreetBambra, T'' -''Tnu " " ^ Av A. + W.P.(C)1153lfS045-^ ^\ SANDEEP/G4& n 'v ' \.j...'^titioner Through MsAnusuyaSalwan anc^Mr.Abhishek V: V Pundir,Advocates.- I n I versus | NORTH DELffi
VERSUS
NORTHDELHI CC|RP;0RATFIQN Respondent /../gr^rough >-'Mr>SuniI Gdei^rfStanding Counsel for / North Dl^C with;ATsiS,upreet Bambra, # -5' • ^ Adyoq^e. % ii i T f- W.P.(C)#1780/2015 I ' 1 ' I HARINDSRSINGH Petitioner ' ^^s.Abpuj^a;;;Salwan ancl Mr.Abhishek NORTHDELHIMUlSlCiSaCfflillOR^ Respondent Through Ms.Renu Gupta,Advocate. W.P.(C)11784/2015 SURENDER KUMAR VATS Petitioner Thi-ough Ms.Anusuya Salwan and Mr.Abhishek NORTHDELHIMUNICIPALCORPORATION Respondent ^ Through Mr.Sunil Goel, Standing Counsel for North DMC with Ms.SupreetBambra, Advocate. + W.P.(C)11785/2015 JITENDERSINGH Petitioner Throughu^'^^^'' M^ Salwan and Mr.Abhishek uu '^, • /:Pundir^ A^do^p. ' T'" V- 'V-,; -■, O.. v., wei-sus. k,. /rS northDaiiMuNil5MJ"®i«^ I " ' Through Mr.Sunil Goel, Standing Counsel for NorthDMC withMs.Su|reet Bambra, '1 Advocate. + W.P.(C) lk789/20I5^%, ' / nirmala\4:1,. Throirih[7]..^MsvAnhshya^;^^^ andMr.Abhishek • 7:;;' puniMryAdv^
VERSUS
NorthDMC withMs.Supreet Bambra, Advocate. '~)p
VERSUS
+ W.P.(C)11793/2015 ANILKUMAR Petitioner Throhgli'rTHsSnp and Mr.Abhishek ■"' ■'^"''ocates. Puhdil.Aiyo( ■■ if % /f' "'jyversus y.. 'vy#- % NORTHd6lHIMUNICIPAL CORPORATION %spondent Through Ms.RenuGupta, Advocale. a • i + W.P.(C) |796/2015 I ARVINDipHA%^(it ^^titioner ^i:^.C'''k"PuhSir,.Adyoehtes:' VCrSUS Through Ms.Renu Gupta, Advocate. + W.P.(C) 11797/2015.
HEMRAJ SHARMA Petitioner + + +
VERSUS
NORTHDELHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION Respondent W.P.(C)11799/2015 RAJESH GUPTA Petitioner versus" /A... NORTHDELpPMUNlClPALCORPORATION"^...Respondent.V fly'Throhgh Ms.Renu Gupta,::^v(|cate. W.P.(C)El80372015 AMIT VERMA Petitioner Through, Ms AnUsuya Salwan andMr.Abhishek 7^'yyPundifj;Advocates. / -versus NORTHDELHIME|Nlii!|Pi^/CO..... Respondent Through MrlSunil Goel, Standing Counsel for North DMC with Ms.Suprret Bambra, Advocate. W.P.(C)11805/2015 KULDEEP VERMA Petitioner NORTH DELHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION Respondent Tlirough Ms.Renu Gupta,Advocate. + W.P.(C)3891/2016 BABITA BHARDWAJ Petitioner versus...... NORTHDBLHhMUNlfcpPALCORpK^TTON\,...Respondent f Through Mr.Sul^Goel,"Standing Counsel for North'DMC with I^iS}Si|preet Bambra, f '' Advocate. | + W.P.(C)i035/2016 'T I ' - n I? RAJEBVMITTAL ^:^titioner \ /..Through •■;:-Ms;Ahusu^T^|^^^ Mr.Abhishek Pundirj'Advocates/' vlrsul"".J;/,L Advocate. + W.P.(C)4061/2016 SATBIR VATS Petitioner o/ Thi-ough Ms.Anusuya Salwan and Mr.Abhishek
VERSUS
NORTH DELHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION Respondent Advocate. + W.P.(C)4062/2016 Petitioner ASHOK ■r 'Through. i;-M|iAnusuya''S'aIv^ Mr.Abhishek ^' •■■^U-Tuhdir;-Advocates! \ i '-v/ ■, ■ _ ■.. -v:-!; >, „:!•, 1 ? v " versus '.--■■■" 'ii:i " I NORTHDELHIMUNICIP^GORPORATION Rispondent Through/A.l^.Sunil Goel, Standing Counsel for L[5] '"^Uffcrth'I^Mp^ Ms.Sppreet Bambra, + W.P.(C)4O79/20:ife5' /-TU SURENDERKUMAft^VEML^;:;!tS^ -"^ Petitioner
VERSUS
+ W.P.(C)11026/2015 GANGA RAM SHARMA Petitioner
VERSUS
NORTHDELHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION.1... Respondent Through Mr.Sunil Goel, Standing Counsel for with Ms.Supreet Bambra, 5 s KAlvocate.,...-i I « LAA;' "/''U n CORAM: HON'BLElylS^dySTICEINDERMEET;KAUlS!v \, INDERNEEEt^KAUR,J. (oral^).,' it | 1 order shall dispose,,ofthis;batch ofwritpetitions.
2 Atiie outset, it is pointed out that a bunch ofsinilarly placed contractors had'filed certain suits which;,'had beSnTdecreed in their favour against whichr-^al'fegui^ FirC5lppeal had been filed. That Regular Fiist Appeal had been disposed ofby a Single Bench ofthis Courton 01.12.2016(RFA No.786/2016);it was based on the consent order dated 17.11.2016 arrived inter-se the parties
3 This Court notes that these writ petitions arise out of the
4 The stand ofthe respondent was that there is a spelific clause in the agreement whichis bindmg-upon theparties and w^ich was to the effect that -the ^subject to the availability of funds-in;paftfcular--^^^'h^^^^ account from time to time and the payments shall Ife made strictly queue basis i.e. first the past liabilities will be cleared and after the release of payments for past bills only then the case of the petitioners would be considered; interest would also not be payable. I I
5 The relevant extract of Clause 7 of the 'General Conditions of Contract for Municipal Coiporation of Delhi Works' highlighted by the respondent Corporation is reproduced herein as under:- "The payment ofpassed bills will be subject to availability offunds in particular head ofaccountfrom time to time in MCD. Payment ofbills shall be strictly on Queue basis i.e.first thepastliabilities will be cleared and after that the release ofpaymentfor passed bills be in order ojthe demandreceived atHQ underparticular head ofaccounts. No interestshall be payable to the-conWactordn^ease ofdelay in payment on account of non-availability of/imdsjhfhe,pcmtic^,hejadofaccount'PfMCD."
6 This bcihg\|he stand..of;the':rdspondenf'dpfpof;ation,the petition.tf C'V '' % n had progre^seg^nd the matter;wakto betaken up fSfiial hearing. n 1
7 Ho|vever, at this stage, as notfed'supra, attentionffof this Court j / n ii. V d y-- \ y 5 sr has been'|rawn to the juigment passed by the Singlejfeench ofthis 7:, M "''yi'! h- ?.',y 0 % n H'. 0 Court in RT;^ out of decrees which had enuredih'favour,ofjSiicE-^l^^^^^ who had preferred to file civil suits instead of'Mihg'wfifpetitions.
8 In the course ofthese proceedings on 07.09.2016,the additional submission ofthe respondent was noted which \vas that the payments being asked for by the petitioner are under'non-planned head'and the petitioner will have to stand in queue along with others;submission of planned head' and the money under the 'non-planned head' is being mis-used i.e. for purpose other than those purposes for which it is required to be used. The respondent had been directed to place on record an affidavit stating the amounts expended in the 'non-planned head'. This affidavit is on record and the details of money sought to be expended in the'non-planned head'have been given.
9 Courtis ofthd yieWjthatdlae^drddm|)assed^n RFA No.786/2016 this Court is>6fthe view that::thes^;,petitions c^'al^be disposed off on the sam'e tenms and conditions as there is no disbtitelto the fact that IN" I the case of these petitioners is similar to those who were|parties in the I,,,< } II RFA. &, I 7 f I'"
10 The teims NfTlfe consent order'|passed^/6N'17.11.2016 and reproduced in RFA.sf^t,l|8S/2:Qf[6] re^as;;r'^^^'=;^,aA''
(i) The appellants shallfilefresh compilations, complete in all respects in respectofthe respondents and the other contractors, irrespective of whether they have filed any appeals/suits ofrecoveiy or not, so that there is a clarity about theirpriority in the wait list.
(ii) The appellants undertake to strictly adhere to the timeline mentioned in the compilation,for releasingpayments to the respondents. X
(iv) The appellantsshallensure that the budgetfor release ofamounts under the headof Non-Plan Expenditure is increasedon a regular basisso thatthe release ofpaymentscan be expedited to the respondents and other contractors in the wait list, even prior to the dates ofpriority mentionedagainsttheir names.
(v) The appellants shall upload the compilation on their websitesfor ease ofaccess and update itregularly atthe endofeach monthfor the respondentsandothers to know.what their status is in the wait list.
(vi) Having regard to thefact that the appellants expect the respondents to stay their hands and notpursue their legal remediesfor execution ofthe impugnedjudgments and decreesfor aperiod nientionedfiereincfterjt isd^eed thai interest shall be payable to the respondents on thefrincipakamount after the''expiry ofthi'ee years and ninety days reckonedfrom the'datefhe concerned'Division hadpassedthCifillSjOfthe respondentsfor payment.In other worfs,acusftion of90days is Shingprovided to kjie Head Quarters of N fT'd' ''4-Xr v'" "X fidf both the appeilanSfor completihg-the^administrative work ofredpfm^and diarising the bills receivfifrorifdifferentDivimons andfpreparingacombinedlistforpaymentandit is agreedthat-^r thesaidperiod, no mterestshalkbepayable to the respondents.
(vii) It isfurther agreed that the appellants will not be liable to p^y interest on the principal amounts payahl& tofihefrkspqndems undefjfthe impugfed judgments and A decrees, for a'perioduof three years-fedkoned fromNhE^ddte expiry of 90 days y X;: ■' ' '' mentionedabove, 'f ^''--.X'-' -' 'f •<., -r -t'- T
(viii) However, immediately^phfexpiijy.-.^pf three yeaps'-m noted above, if the amounts remain outstandingfor any reason whatsoever, the appellants shallpay interest @ 9% per annum on the principal amount to the respondents, for the remainingperiod, till realization.
(ix) It is further agreed that the aforesaid arrangement ofpayment of interest by the appellants @ 9% per annum on the outstandingprincipal amount to the respondents shall continue onlyfor aperiod of two years, reckonedfrom the end of the thirdyear as mentionedin clause (vii) hereinabove. A (x)Ifthe amounts remain payable by the appellants even thereafter, the respondentsshall be entitled to seek legal recoursefor execution ofthe impugnedjudgments and decrees and claim interest on the decretalamountfrom day one.
(xi) The respondents undertake that in view of the settlement arrived at with the appellants, as recorded RFA786/2016 RFA 192/2016Page 4 of9above, they shall not f^ke any steps to file execution petitions in respect of the impugned judgments and decrees,subject matter ofthepresent appeals,for theperiod mentioned hereinabove.
(xii) Asfor the already pending execution petitions, orders passed in these proceedings shall be placed on recordso that they can be disposed ofby the concerned courts on the basis ofthe consent order, with liberty,gixinted to ih'e-respondents tofilefresh execution petitionsincaseofd^tfuUpn^tljejphti.dftheapphlic^ts,ashdsfeendetailedabove."
11 LeamdS eopnsel forthe Corporati'on'^|Mr.Sunil Goel) was also tie eounsel whoiad appeared before theRFA llourt. <■:. ■ If. t/ ■ 1 r I •!. '•/ fv f ( -t _ ^ V ' -jh 12, This consent order arrived at on 17.11.2016 ihter-se those contractors^,and the Corporafedn wili'Ahu|J^:|ind th^parties in the present petitionsI;as7w0li. The respondent;'0otpora^ will strictly adhere to the tinielihe>fdf-refedsin^ the petitioners which is to the effect that besides the fact that no payment shall be released out of turn to any party, a period of three years and 90 days reckoned from the date the concerned Division has passed the bills of the Contractors for payment shall be,the period from which the payment shall start to r^all administrative works of receiving and diarising the bills received from different Divisions and preparing the combined list for payment. Up to three years & 90 days, no interest would be payable by the Department to the contractors. However, even if after the expiry of three years, the amounts remain outstanding, the respondent Corporation will pay interest @ 9% per annum on the principal amounttothe contraptdrsi|)rfthe..remaim^^ till realization. The aforesaid aiTahgemehf for payment of int|i|st the, respondent Corporation @:''9% on the outstanding principtl "amount to the contractors shall continue only for a period of two years reckoned II, ■; '• ? i -I; •••.i 5: <sv u 1.[4] )J'. r 1 "■ ■ (.• ' from the bnd of the third yeapjas mentioned in the sub-clause (vii) and if this amount rernairis payable by the respondent Corporation, even ■f thereafter the 'cpntfactofs" w be entitled -to seek legal recourse by filing an execution of'the entiremmount and this order will be treated as a decree which would then become executable. The respondent Corporation has also ensured that the budget for realization of amount under the head of 'non-planned expenditure' will be increased so that the release of payment to the contractors can be expedited in the wait r'. ThisCourtthusnotesthattheconsentorderof17.1].2016reproduced m RFA No.786/2016 is modified to the extent that there being no judgmentand decree in favour ofthe contractorsin the presentcase; vi. • 'conditions which the respondent (as appellants in the RFA)has agreed and undertaken will be binding 'his order shall be treated as a decree which in the eventuality ofnon-payffipt,(asfeJ tijI^rnis detailed supra)shall i'-- i. P 'V-'i C' 'C' 1 Ji '■ ■' become execij^^Ie/^-'
13 Ne|Jl^t0 state that this order passed b^ttiilcourt will be fullyadh|redtointrueletterandspiritbyrespondent|o.1andwill thusnotconstrainanypartyjtlrdpproachtheCourtonth|count.
14 No are callbd-Br onei^^ipgafio,^ are disposed of.
JANUARY 23, 2017 A INDERMEETKAUR,J