Full Text
Date ofJudgment:23.01.2017 \
■y-'-J ">■
ANIL KUMAR Petitioner
Through Ms.Anusuya SalwanandMr.Abhishek ^^^Bundiiy^A^vocates.
1113 T
-#ve,rsusi '■-j' ^
NORTHDEKH[;s|HNICIf|fi^§!.^TT^ Respondent Goel, St§ndi® Counsel for
IdMC withMs.Si^reet Bambra, /% Throng #ate.
TNDERMEftr ^ral For orders,%e^rf^i^C)-NbTTotf|irlbl5.
• t -■
"^'*®*®33Ss:sSStt3 INDERMEET KAUR, J JANUARY 23,2017
A
2017:DHC:8332 / V/ $--6 to 41,43 to 47 & 58 HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Date ofJudgment:23.01.2017
G!-I^,^mAMDASS Petitioner
Through Ms.Anusuya Salwan and MrAbhishek . . Tundir,,Advocates.
-vetsubt A' " ■ ■
NORTHDEMIlMUNICipAfeAO^^^fl^ / Through-'btPMr Goel, Standing Counsel for
T "' ' .Mdr|b/|)MC with]Vls.Su|)reetBambfa, ; • Advobate. /
W.P.(C) tp008/2015 J
RAKESH KUMAR::"/ ^ . /'/ T ■ft, '/'T''/-' Petitioner
■• .Through ^ Ms.AnuAiyav.SaiAah andMr.Abhishek
1: .PundiA^dvbcates.
Through Mr.Sunil Goel, Standing Counsel for North DMC with Ms.Supreet Bambra, Advocate.
Through Ms.Anusuya Salw.an and Mr.Abhishek Pundir,Advocates.
NISHANT ' - A Petitioner , ^Thrbugh j;t;L®!Ajnasuya:'Salw^ Mr.Abhishek
'PuhdiR--Advocates. ■A
■ 'AS' • r:
' ' . '• ■ A ' ; • '
NORTHDELHIMUNICIPALC^^ORATION Respondent
Through;;::;./t.;.iMi Sunil Goel, Standing Counsel for r .. ; ; A 'North DMGywith Ms.SApreet Bambra, ''''■vUtAdvocateihuL;
W.P.(C) 10032/20L5: ' CHIRAC ALUDEEN' Petitioner
Through Ms.Anusuya Salwan andMr.Abhishek Pundir, Advocates.
BRAI-IAMPRAKASH Petitioner
Through Ms.Aiiusuya Salwan and Mr.Abhishek
, n n n nnnn ■North;E)MC with Ms.Supreet Bambra, ■■ ■ 'jICAdvocate.;,.'
W.P.(C) lOOdbf^Old'-'' C),Ob LAXMINARAlSf GUPTAb'NU .'petitioner
Through,;'.;■;}-Ms Anusuya Salwan andlMr.Abhishek
■' Pundu, Advocates. iv
C, ' ''!
• . v Through,, Gb%ib'Standing Counsel for
'■ ,■ v.,.[VU-T.-y-Norlh'®MO%itli Ms.Supreet Bambra, Adyocateh''
RANBIR SINGH Petitioner
Through Ms.Anusuya Salwan andMr.Abhishek r Advocate.
ANIL KUMAR BHARDWAJ Petitioner
Through Ms.Anusuya Salwan and Mr.Abhishek ,
■1, Nortl,!DMC with IvI-s.Shprret Bambra, Advocate. it
KUSUM , j ■// Li.
V .-Through ' Ms.AnusuymS|livanfandMr.Abhishek
■ '
North DMC withMs.Supreet Bambra, Advocate. lA>
Tlirough Mr.Sunil Goel, Standing Counsel for Advocate.
W.P:(C)10060/2015 •
ANURAG RANA . \ ; '-■■■. Petitioner
Through -Ms.AnusuyaSalwan.and Mr.Abhishek
• V '■ ■ , / . , Pundu Advocates'.
■'
NORTHDelhimunicipalCPRPORATION Respondent
Throughyk;;l\feRto Goel, Standing Counsel for
■y Al./ T I^bid;DMC;withMs.Shpreet Bambra, t,:, vyu ■ iU;;viA^|ltater ,/ w.p.(c) ioo64M6?%,:.!,nT
JASWANT SINGH ' / Petitioner
.W.P.(C)11016/2015 SITA RAM SHARMA Petitioner
North,DMC with Ms.Supreet Bambra, nn ; Adyogate., '.'tu h" n W.P.(C)110l7/mf n
ANILKUMAR/' ' ' '''v-i/Aetitioner
Through;,' ;'MhiiMhsuya Salwan an(TMr.Abhishek
Tundjr, Advocates. r t,
NORTHDELHIMUNEcftAi;|}^^ .....Respondent /Through .. MnSpni! Goel, Standing Counsel for
■^:iUkrr;'Nor|hlDf^C''w^
''" '-V--T.//VAd^cutef'
• W.P.(C) 11025/2015
RAVINDER KUMAR Petitioner _l_
Through
GURMUICH BHARDWAJ n
Through
Ms.Anusuya Salwan and Mr.Abhishek NORIHDELHIIVdbliSTCJRA^ GORIIO.R^TION Respondent
AMIT SELIRAWAT e.
-gAI Ttepugh; MslAfeuya;Salwan and Mr.Abhishek
. ;. Puhdir, Advocatds.i versus.
NORTHDELHIMLMCipkgCCORlSRAfION Respondent
Through
VIDYA DEVI
Mr.Sunil Goel, Standing Counsel for Advocate.
NARESHKUMAR'... rV..:- - ^ LAN Petitioner
■-■^tThi-ough Ms.Anusuya S-alv/an'^andMr.Abhishek i"'-. ' I ' 'A
■v.. PundA Advocates,.r\ %
:v
1 - , j_i. I' 1
• Through MLSunil Goel, Standing Counsel for
■ At V. h;-' vLNb Ms.Supreet Bambra, v ; v. Advocate.: A. .u
" W.P.(C) 11449/2045; ' 'yAt; A-:.- ' ATUL GUPTA Petitioner
Tbnough Ms.Anusuya Salwan and Mr.Abhishek
SANJAY
Through
W.P.(C)1153L/2015 SANDEEKG^RiG ' .4 ' Vf- "''
^ ' Througl^.^NjMs AnusuyaSalwan aniMr.Abhishek
:Pundu Advocates.- |
'k''""'/7Tfero%h,.,,„Mr,Suntf'Goe^/S^ding Counsel for
. CfL/vNoith DMG'with'Ms.SupreetBambra, Advocate.-'-"
MR.CLIARANJEET
Through f Advocate.
SUMITVERMA , Petitioner
Through Ms.Anusuya Saiwan and Mr.Abhishek
' ft.- ' ^7ItvnfKbtrlE'jblvlC withAds;lupreet Bambra, t 'fsfiSP 'Oil
HARINDER SINGH L'- ' / v c .....Pftitioner
Through; ;;; MsvAhusuyn;Saiwan andMr.Abhishek
7^ vA v^^^Euhir:Adyo^^ /' 'rt versua.,..,^ NORTHDELHIMUl^I&LCOLORATION Respondent
Through Ms.Renu Gupta, Advocate.
SURENDER KUMAR VATS Petitioner
Through Ms.Anusuya Saiwan and Mr.Abhishek . NORTH DELHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION Respondent
Advocate.
JITENDER SINGH Petitioner
Through: n n Ms.Anusuya Salwan and Mr.Abhishek
. n Pundirj Advocates.
•versus
NORTH DELHI'MUNICIPAL,CORPORATION^:,^...iLespondent
•• ^ I
Through 'MnSunil Goel, Standing Counsel for NorthDMC with Ms.Su|reetBambra, Advocate. /
NIRMALA n n /■■■ .;y L'.h.a. Petitioner
■ Throhgh' . ; •Ms'.Ahusuya §alwan andMr.Abhishek
■■/ PundirvAdvocates.
Through Ms.Renu Gupta,Advocate.
' W.P.(C)11793/2015 ANIL KUMAR Petitioner
Through , ,.Ms.Anusuya Salwan and Mr.Abhishek
,, T": n n' Pundir,,Advocates.
;"kAei"sus.HT//u NORTHDLLHIMUMCIPi^/eoippATION ^ %spondent
Through'n "n,'MsjRdnu Gupta,Advocate.
W.P.(C)1,1796/2015 n I ARVINDKUMARSIN(||!::S;}7.^ letitioner
' ^ Through Ms.Anusuya^diwantand Mr.Abhishek A:.,Pundir,..Advoedtek.
LILMRAJ SHARMA Petitioner f
RAJESH GUPTA Petitioner versus'
" • . 1 > u
'v . i'-" /( ' I . . .
NORTHDELIR'MUNrCfPAL..C.pRPPRATPON ... Respondent
.7 'A'-"''.,;, '7., i Throh^nydUs.R^E,Gupta/Advocate.
AMITVERMA Petitioner T'.. 7.-;
Through;C MA/^suya Salwan an#Mr.Abhishek PundiTj'Advocates.
■v.ersus
NORTHDELHIMUME^L'COM^^ Respondent
Through Mf.Sunil Goel, Standing Counsel for North DMC with Ms.Suprret Bambra, Advocate.
KLUDEEP VERMA Petitioner NORTH DELHI MUNICIPAI^ CORPORATION Respondent
BABITA BPIARDWAJ Petitioner
ThroughL'k;l^.lu|^ Counsel for with ^k-SPpreetBambra, W.P.(C)^035/2016
RAJEEV MITTAL if f "v ii!. ii 3; v! [)L1/ -ThfougL'^'vfMsMimsuyaiSa^ Mr.Abhishek
, , Pundir••'Advocates./ versus"'
NORTHDELPII MLTISflCIPAL CORPORATION Respondent
Advocate.
Thi'ough Ms.Anusuya Salwan and Mr.Abhishek Pimdir, Advocates.
Advocate.
ASHOK KUMAR , ■} «.. ■ Petitioner
■ ' '' ''i / A "5" , -Through ■ ■MSiAnusuya ^akyaNandMr.Abhishek
' A A'Piandir]-Advocates! V
/ -
NORTHDELHIMUNICIPAL pORTORATION Rdspondent Throu|h;;i!.TAs|n^ Standin| Counsel for
'/A2'T\l^orih'J3MG';withMs.Supreet Barnbra, ■■ "> 'A' A-Advbcatev' ■■■A-.A, ■ , w.p.(C)4079/Id4C'^;'
SURENDERKUMAiMERMA^:;"" ' Petitioner
GANGA RAM SHARMA
Through
JUDGMENT
1 Thisordershall dispcise;dfdhslbatch ofwritpetitions.
2 Atthe outset,it is pbirited'durtat a bunch ofshnilarly placed contractors %d.i;ilfec[;Lbrtafn^^siiii^C^ in their favour against been filed. That Regular First Appeal had been disposed ofby a Single Bench ofthis n Courton 01.12.2016(RFA No.786/2016);it was based on the consent order dated 17.11.2016 arrived inter-sethe parties
3 This Court notes that these writ petitions arise out of the Corporation. All the petitioners are duly registered contractors registeied with the respondent Corporation and have been carrying out various works ofthe respondent. The petitioners having completed the said worksto the satisfaction ofthe respondent for which bills had been prepared and certified but complete payment not having been I received by the petitioners had accordingly been constrained to file these petitions. Contention of the petitiPners being that they are claiming only.fhose bills whicA'to been du%;pdi'tified for payment if '.[1] i ' ".'y and for whibhmp amourifhad been paid.' C. > ' -f.;. 4^ Thestand oftherespondentwasthatthere is aspe|ific clause in the agreement which is bindingmpbiiA parties and which wasto the effect that -the b/subject to the availability offunds/in:partrcular heajijpfacebunt'from time to time and the payments shall be made.strictly on queue basis i.e. first the past liabilities will be cleared and after the release ofpayments for _ past bills only then the case ofthe petitioners would be considered; interest would also not be payable.
5 The.ielevant extract of Clause 7 ofthe 'General Conditions of Contract for Municipal Corporation ofDelhi Works' highlighted by the respondent Corporation is reproduced herein as under:- Thepaymentofpassed bills will besubject to availability offunds inparticular head ofaccountfiom time to time in MCD. Paymentofbills shall be strictly on Queue, basis I.e.firstthepastliabilities willhe clearedandafterthattherelease ofpaymentfor passedbills be in order ofthe demandreceivedatHQ underparticular headofaccounts. No interestshall bepayable to the conWactordn,ease ofdelay inpaymenton accountof non-availabilityof funds in theparticular headofaccount-ofIdCD."
6 This beiiigv&e stand.Q0i^;pesppndent"C0ip the petition had progresse^;and thenid&|hwa^^ upM^filalhearing.
7 However, at this stagqj; supra, attention|)fthis Court has been ^clrawn to thejulgn§nCf^d by the Singleifiench ofthis -/rcv!.ct\. f- Court in RF|. these RFM&ldi^sen out of decrees which had enuredin^favdiinoCsucHlike;^ who had preferred to file civil suitsinstead offiling-writpetitions.
8 Inthe course ofthese proceedings on 07.09.2016,the additional submission ofthe respondent was noted which wasthatthe payments being asked forbythe petitionerare under'non-planned head'and the
0. 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. 1his affidavitis on record and the details ofmoney soughtto be expended inthe'non-planned head'have been given.
9 Courtis ofthe yiewrthat,the;orders^piassedvinRFA No.786/2016 this Court is ofthe view that thesd\petitions cdnmlso be disposed off onthesanset^sand conditionslasfhere is no dis^utdb thefactthat the case ofthese petitionersiiss|mijSrtothose who werdipartiesinthe RFA. J
10 The terins of the consehf oiher.'passe.ci on''17.11.2016 and reproduced in RFA,.i^ld:,3i5/2C)16 reaxfast-' 'a..1'' 0)Theappellantsshallfilefreshcompilations,completeinallrespectsinrespectofthe respondents and the. other contractors, irrespective of whether they havefiled any appeals/suitsofrecovery or not. s-o thatthere isaclarity abouttheirpriority in the wait list.. (li) The appellams imdenake,o aricly adhere lo the timelme mentiomd ia the /4-1
(iv) The appellants.shall ensure that the budgetfor release ofamounts under the head of Non-Plan Expenditure is increasedon aregular basisso thatthe release ofpayments can be expedited to the respondents and other contractors in the wait list, even prior to the dates ofpriority_ mentionedagainsttheir names.
(v) The appella7its shall upload the compilation on their websitesfor ease ofaccess and update itregularly at the end ofeach monthfor the respondents and others to Imow.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 legalremediesfor execution ofthe impugnedjudgments and decreesfor aperiod mentioned'Hereinafter, it is agreed that interestshall be payable to the respondents on the principal amount after thpyxpiry ofthree years and ninety da)>s reckonedfrom th^fc^atejheconcerned.Ifmsipn hadpassMdlmf'iEs^oftherespondentsfor payment.In otherf^fs,acushion of90daysis bejngprovide'dto%heHeadQuartersof both the appellantffor completingtheiadmmptrative workofreSeiyiriganddiarisingthe billsreceivedfrom differentDivisionsandfrep'aringacombinedlistfbripaymentanditis agreedthat'forthesaidperiod,no i]f..erest\shaljbepayable to therespondents.
(vii) It isfurther agreed that_ thelyj^Mft^i^m not be liable to piy interest on the principal amounts payaUld tofkheff^spqiidm^^ impugfid judgments and decrees,for a period.of three years,reckonedfronrt'hf date of expiry of90 days mentioned above., "; •'
(viii) However, immediately of:-expiry'of,th,ee yemys as noted above, ifthe amounts remain outstandingfor.any reason whatsoever, the appellants shallpay interest@9% per annum on the principal amount to the respondents,for the remaining period, till realization. fix) It isfurther agreed that the aforesaid arrangement ofpcyment ofinterest by the appellants@9%per annum on the outstanding principal amount to the respondents shallcontinue onlyforaperiodoftwoyears,reckonedfrom the endofthe thirdyearas (x)Ifthe amountsremainpayable bythe appellantseven thereafter, therespondentsshall he entitled to seeklegalrecoursefor execution ofthe impugnedjudgments and decrees andclaim intereston the decretalamountfrom day one.
(xi) The respondents undertake that in view of the settlement arrived at with the appellants,asrecordedRJ^A786/2016&RFA 192/2016Page4of9above,theyshallnot take any steps to file execution petitions in respect ofthe impugnedjudgments and decrees,subjectmatterofthepresentappeals,fortheperiodmentionedhereinabove. (xii)Asfor the alreadypending executionpetitions, orderspassedin theseproceedings. shall beplacedon recordso thattheycan be disposedofby the concernedcourtson the basis ofthe consent order, wdthlibertygixintedto tli^ respondents tofilefresh execution petitionsincasecfpbult.on diejpartdf'the appelkafrfasMsfeen detailedabove."
11 LeaineU^Qunsel SunilGoel) was also the counsel wholiadralipi^^beforethe Gourt. 12- ThK consent.order|^foe|\| on 17.11.2016 mter-se those contractors: and Ji^,:;Go]|pr|^bn theiparties in the present petitioifoba.;;whli The'respopddfo•-G^or^on will strictly adhereto thetimeline%;refegihg petitioners whichis to the effectthat besidesthefactthatno paymentshall bereleased out _ ofturnto anyparty,a period ofthree yearsand90daysreckonedfrom the datethe concerned Division haspassedthe bills ofthe Gontractors for paymentshall bethe period from which the paymentshall startto 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 amountto the contraptofs fopdheu-emainihg-^^^ till realization. The aforesaid arrangemehf for pajmf^nt of inlSrbs:t\y the respondent n Corporation @"'9% onfdfeCcmtstkhkmg prindip^al 'amount to the contractors shall continuefohlf/fbriUfoeriod of two ylars'reckoned from the end ofthe third ypftri'as ife^htioned in the sub-cl^se(vii)and it this amount remains,payable^by':th|::uegpbndent Corporation, even theieaftei the contractorsuy/ill be entitled forkesk Isgal recourse by filing an execution ofkhefontife amount andfhis order will be treated as a decree which would then become executable. The respondent Corporation has also ensured thatthe budget for realization ofamount undei the head of non-planned expenditure' will be increased so that the release ofpayment to the contractors can be expedited in the wait This Courtthus notesthatthe consentorder of17.1].201-6reproduced m RFA No.786/2016 is modified to the extent that there being no judgment and decree in favour ofthe contractors in the present case; however all other tenus and conditions which the respondent (as appellants in the RFA) has agreed and undertaken will be binding upon them and this order shall be treated as a decree which in the eventuality of non-payihenf(as-per detailed supra) shall become executhbleA-'f,. frtfi.r
13 Neejdle^srto state thftikis oidei passed b}^rthis7Court will be fully adhered to in true letter-and spnitby respondent|o.[1] and will thusnotconstrain any partytoAproAtheCourtonthi|count.
14 No ffufh®f-;Qpdef[5] are called-for, disposed of..i.y-'si INBERMEETICAUR,J