Ms. Anusuya Salwan and Mr. Abhishek Pundir v. North Delhi Municipal Corporation

Delhi High Court · 23 Jan 2017 · 2017:DHC:8330
Indermeet Kaur, J
WP(C) Nos. 10055/2015
2017:DHC:8330
civil petition_dismissed Significant

AI Summary

Delhi High Court upheld a consent order regulating payment of dues and interest to contractors by North Delhi Municipal Corporation, emphasizing fund availability and binding nature of consent terms as a decree.

Full Text
Translation output
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Date ofJudgment: 23.01.2017
W.P.(C) 10064/2015
JASWANT SINGH ....Petitioner Ms.Anusuya Salwan and Mr.Abhishek fRundktjv^vocates.
Through f Ojs- ThrougWi Respondent Er^S^lf Goel, Sl^tiile Counsel for
Sto MC with fSTsufjreet Bambra, NORTH DE [ opate.
CORAML „
TNDERMe V (oral) iS, For orders.^'eififelaPWiPi ;Mgj0®f2O15.
INDERMEET KAUR, J JANUAR Y 23,2017 A 2017:DHC:8330
¥ ■
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Date ofJudgment: 23.01:2017 5, W.P.(C) 10055/2015
GH^SHYAM DASS Petitioner Ms.Anusuya Salwan and Mr.Abhishek j^;^-.»!a»BH]adk5,,^dvocates.
Through :ry mS^MC with NCstlr^et Barbra, ^^'fHISlate. ^
■ j ;• \ ! •' i
S'
-f NORTPIDE.r
■ I
I I- W.P.(C)1|008/2015 hi'' It* ' RAKESH MJMAM^IX
\ ■"■^s:ym0r
Ms.j^>u§uyav&l'%n and Mr.Abhishek S' I I...Petitioner f.\S
VERSUS
NORTH DELHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION ..... Respondent
Through Mr.Sunil Goel, Standing Counsel for North DMC with Ms.Supreet Bambra, Advocate.
W.P.(C) 10026/2015
•i'
MONIKA ....Petitioner WP(C) Nos. 10055/2015, 10008/2015, 10028/2015, 10032-33/205, 10046/2015, 10051/2016, 10053/2015, 10057-58/2015, 10060/2015, 10064/2015, 11016-17/2015,11025/2015, 11027-28/2015, 11429/2015
11446/2015, 11449/2015, 11471/2015, 11531-32/2015, 1!737/2015, 11780/2015, 11784-85/2015, 11789/2015, 11792-93/2015, 11796-97/2015. 11799/2015, 11803/2015, ,11805/2015. 3891/2016.
. 4035/2016,4061-62/2016,4079/2016, 11026/2015
2017:DHC:8330 Ms.Anusuya Salwan and Mr.Abhishek
Pundir, Advocates. ‘
Through ,
VERSUS
Respondent Mr.Sunil Goel, Standing Counsel for
North DMC with Ms.Suprret Bambra, Advocate.
NORTH DELHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION
Through
W.P.(C) 10028/2015
NISHANT
Petitioner Srt' ^Thr&ugh^^^^^pA^suya4^^ Mr.Abhishek
I
VERSUS
NORTH DELHI MUNlCIP&lfepORATION f li
.-sPS Respondent Througpydvffel Goel, Standiii Counsel for f'::% Ms.^reet Bambra
. i, Vi I W.P.(C) 10032/2f)>^:
CHIRAC ALUDEEN"''^CSS^ Petitioner
■r.
« Ms.Anusuya Salwan and Mr.Abhishek Pundir, Advocates.
Through
VERSUS
Respondent
Through Mr.Sunil Goel, Standing Counsel for North DMC with Ms.Supreet Bambra, Advocate.
NORTH DELHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION WP(C)Nps. 10055/2015, 10008/2015, 10028/2015, 10032-33/205, 10046/2015, 10051/2016, Ip053/20J,5, 10057-58/2015, 10060/2015, 10064/2015, 11016-17/2015,11025/2015, 11027-28/2015, 11429/2015
11446/2015, 11449/2015. 11471/2015, 11531-32/2015, 11737/2015, 11780/2015. 11784-85/20-1.5, 11789/2015, 11792-93/2015, 11796-97/2015, 11799/2015, 11803/2015, 11805/2015, 3891/2016, 4035/2016, 4061-62/2016, 4079/2016, 11026/2015
.1 2017:DHC:8330 o
W.P.(C) 10033/2015 ....Petitioner
BRAHAM PRAKASH
Through Ms.Anusuya Salwan and Mr.Abhishek Pundir, Advocates.
;
VERSUS
:5
NORTH DELHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION ....Respondent ■ ■
Through Mr.Sunil Goel, Standing Counsel for with Ms.Supreet Bambra, . oGate...
'v< r W.P.(C) 100^f/2p|^5 LAXMIN
^■Yitioner
Througff^SSg^^suya Salwan andlMnAbhishek f'- iTMifdil', Advocates.
Im I ?
>■
VERSUS
I
Mr-.SiJn^^ GtD^^Sfanding Counsel for Ms.Supreet Bambra
Respondent r ■
■*
W.P.(C) 10051/2015
RANBIR SINGH ....Petitioner
Through Ms.Anusuya Salwan and Mr.Abhishek Pundir, Advocates.
VERSUS
NORTH DELHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION Respondent WP(C)Nos. 10055/2015, 10008/2015, 10028/2015, 10032,33/205, 10046/2015, 10057-58/2015, 10060/2015, 10064/20] 5, 11446/2015, 11449/2015, 10051/2016, 10053/2015, 11016-17/2015,11025/2015, 11027-28/2015, 11429/2015
11737/2015, 11799/2015, 11803/2015, 11471/2015, 1.153,1-32/2015, 11789/2015, 11792-93/2015, 11796-97/2015, 4035/2016, 4061 -62/2016, 4079/2016, 11026/2015
11780/2015, 11784-85/2015, 11805/2015, 3891/2016, Page 3 of23
..V' 2017:DHC:8330 r'- Mr.Sunil Goel, Standing Counsel for
North DMC with Ms.Supreet Bambra, Advocate.
Through
W.P.(C) 10053/2015
ANIL KUMAR BHARDWAJ
Petitioner, Ms.Anusuya Salwan and Mr.Abhishek
. Pundir, Advocates.
Through
VERSUS
NORTH DELHI
Respondent r v, luhfi^Goel, Standing Counsel for
S>^MC with Ms^Stprret Bambra, df0§ate.
W.P.(C) 110057/2015
^hfou^ K4s.Aji^^a,^^pyan^nd Mr.Abhishek I KUSUM Petitioner
'■ t versus"
A i.-Hsw.sEsas'j
€■
NORTH DELHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION i Respondent
Mr.Sunil Goel, Standing Counsel for
North DMC with Ms.Supreet Bambra'’
Advocate.
Through
W.P.(C) 10058/2015
LALITA GARG ....Petitioner WP(C)Nos. 10055/2015, 10008/2015, 10028/2015, 10032-33/205, 10046/2015, 10051/2016, 10053/2015, 10057-58/2015, 10060/2015, 10064/2015, 11016-17/2015,11025/2015, 11446/2015, 11449/2015, 11471/2015, 11789/2015, 11792-93/2015, 11796-97/2015, 4035/2016, 4061-62/2016, 4079/2016, 11026/2015
11027-28/2015, 11429/2015 11780/2015, 11784-85/2015, 11805/2015, 3891/2016, Page 4 of23 :
11531-32/2015, 11737/2015, 11799/2015, 11803/2015, 2017:DHC:8330
'.S Ms.Anusuya Salwan and Mr.Abhishek Pundir, Advocates.
Through
VERSUS
Respondent Mr.Sunil Goel, Standing Counsel for
North DMC with Ms.Supreet Bambra, . Advocate.
NORTH DELHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION
Through
W.P.(C) 10060/2015
Petitioner ANURAG RANA It vTMugh [iwmand Mr.Abhishek'
. r-‘iM^.Anu r
VERSUS
^5^ 7 Respondent NORTH 'pELHI MUNICIPi|\L;f||;|ORATION
Througi/l|ymil Goel, Standing Counsel for Q-w^th Ms.S;fpreet Bambra, V
W.P.(C) 10064/2m^5.^ JASWANT SINGH Petitioner
« V
Through Ms.Anusuya Salwan and Mr.Abhishek Pundir, Advocates.
VERSUS
NORTH DELHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION .... Respondent
Thi'ough Mr.Sunil Goel, Standing Counsel for.
North DMC with Ms.Supreet Bambra, Advocate.
WP(C)Nos. 10055/2015, 10008/2015. 10028/2015, .10032-33/205, 10046/2015, 10051/2016, 10053/2015, 11016-17/2015,11025/2015, 11027-28/2015, 11429/2015
11531-32/2015, 11737/2015, 11780/2015, 11784-85/2015, 11799/2015, 11803/2015, 11805/2015, 3891/2016, 10057-58/2015, 10060/2015, 10064/2015, 11446/2015, 11449/2015, 11471/2015, 11789/2015, 11792-93/2015, 11796-97/2015, 4035/2016,4061-62/2016,4079/2016, 11026/2015
2017:DHC:8330 \r i;
W.P.(C) 11016/2015
SITA RAM SHARMA ....Petitioner Ms.Anusuya Salwan and Mr.Abhishek
, • Pundir, Advocates.
Through
VERSUS
' Respondent Mr.Sunil Goel, Standing Counsel for
:C with Ms.Supreet Bambra, NORTH DELHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION
Through o W.P.(C) 110W2^ 'a ^ etitioner ThrouJiilp^^suya Salw^ an^r.Abhishek f IAdvocates, M
ANILKi i
VERSUS
jRespondent NORTH DILHI ym '^hFOugh^.^^^^Jainlf'Gb^^Js^^ Counsel ^ for
Ms.Supreet Bambra, •s-j
W.P.(C) 11025/2015
Petitioner RAVINDER KUMAR
Through Ms.Anusuya Salwan and Mr.Abhishek Pundir, Advocates.
VERSUS
Respondent NORTH DELHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION
/•v
WP(C)Nos. 10055/2015, 10008/2015, 10028/2015, 10032-33/205, 10046/2015, 10051/2016, 10053/2015, 10057-58/2015, 10060/2015, 10064/2015, 11016-17/2015,11025/2015, 11027-28/2015, 11429/20 i 5
11446/2015, 11449/2015, 11471/2015, 11531-32/2015, 11737/2015, 11780/2015, 11784-85/2015, 11789/2015, i 1792-93/2015, 11796-97/2015, 11799/2015, 11803/2015, 11805/2015, 3891/2016, 4035/2016,4061-62/2016,4079/2016,11026/2015 Page6of23
2017:DHC:8330 r Mr.Sunil Goel, Standing Counsel for
North DMC with Ms.Supreet Bambra, Advocate. ^
Through
W.P.(C) 11027/2015
GURMUKH BHARDWAJ ....Petitioner
Through Ms.Anusuya Salwan and Mr.Abhishek Pundir, Advocates.
VERSUS
NORTH DELHI ., ^/^Tlr^igh r^lM^iiSunil Counsel for laip ■ '
Respondent r \ w ■ t
W.P.(C) 11028/2015
I ii 4 in] i AMIT SEl WAT Petitioner
■S'
X'^efsu^..,;
NORTH DELHI MUNfOllt^^^mON
«•. o
Respondent
Through Mr.Sunil Goel, Standing Counsel for North DMC with Ms.Supreet Bambra, Advocate.
/ '4 \
W.P.(C) 11429/2015
VIDYA DEVI ..... Petitioner
Through Ms.Anusuya Salwan and Mr.Abhishek Pundir, Advocates.
WP(C)Nos. 10055/2015, 10008/2015, 10028/2015, 10032-33,^05, 10046/2015, 10051/2016, 10053/2015, 10057-58/2015, 10060,'2015, 10064/2015, 11016-17,'2015,11025/2015, 11446/2015, 11027-28,'2015, 11429/2015
11780/2015, 11784-85/2015V 11803/2015, li805,'2015, 3891/2016, 11449/2015, 1147,li/2015, |115311-32/201|.5, 11737/2015, 11789/2015, 11792-93/2015, 1 il'796-97/eOI 5! 11799/2015, 4035/2016, 4061 -62/2016, 4079/2016,'ll0^6/20^5 i
Page 7 of23 2017:DHC:8330
VERSUS
Respondent Mr.Sunil Goel, Standing Counsel for
North DMC with Ms.Supreet Bambraj Advocate.
NORTH DELHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION
Through
W.P.(C) 11446/2015 •
NARESH KUMAP ..... Petitioner u r ;^hrougKgrM
\
•sii^u.suya S^^irand Mr.Abhishek
M^^dvocatk^ ^ Km
VERSUS
,15 1 Respondent ®il Goel, Standing Counsel for
^^thJVls.Supreet Bambra, PORATION NORTH DELHI MUNICIPAl,! k
Throu W.P.(C) 11449/20^^ ATUL GUPTA V Petitioner
\
Through Ms.Anusuya Salwan and Mr.Abhishek Pundir, Advocates.
VERSUS
NORTH DELHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION Respondent
Through . Mr.Sunil Goel, Standing Counsel for
North DMC with Ms.Supreet Bambra, Advocate.
WP(C)Nos. 10055/2015, 10008/2015, 10028/2015, 10032-33/205, 10046/2015, 10051/2016, 10053/2015, 10057-58/2015, 10060/2015, 10064/2015, ' 11016-17/2015,11025/2015, 11446/2015, 11449/2015, 11471/2015, 11531-32/2015, 11737/2015, 11789/2015, 11792-93/2015, 11796-97/2015, 11799/2015, 4035/2016,4061-62/2016,4079/2016,11026/2015
1.1027-28/2015, .11429/2015 11780/2015, 11784-85/2015, 11803/2015, 11805/2015, 3891/2016, Page 8 of23
2017:DHC:8330 y"
W.P.(C) 11471/2015
SANJAY
Petitioner Ms.Anusuya Salwan and Mr.Abhishek
• Pundir, Advocates.
Through
VERSUS
NORTH DELHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION ..... Respondent
Mr.Sunil Goel, Standing Counsel for with Ms.Supreet Bambra, Through rl’-J
SANDEE^^ Salwan andiMr.Abhishek r +
■\
“T«
^Petitioner Throu^lg { ^ iM(lr, Advocates.
G^V%anding Counsel for '^7-yiflo Ms.Supreet Bambra,
VERSUS
.# ^Respondent NORTH D:
J
.
W.P.(C) 11532/2015
A....Petitioner MR. CHARANJEET •• j
Through Ms.Anusuya Salwan and Mr.Abhishek Pundir, Advocates.
VERSUS
NORTH DELHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION Respondent WP(C)Nos. 1005.S/201.S, 10008/2015, 10028/2015, 10032-33/205, 10046/2015, 10051/2016, 10053/2015, 10057-58/2015, 10060/2015, 10064/2015, 11016U 7/2015,11025/2015, 11027-28/2015, 11429/2015
11446/2015, 11449/2015, 11471/2015, 11531-32/2015, 11737/2015, 11780/2015, 11784-85/2015, 11789/2015, 11792-93/2015, 11796-97/2015, 11799/2015, 11803/2015, 1.1805/2015, 3891/2016, Page 9 of23
4035/2016, 4061-62/2016, 4079/2016, 1.1026/2015
2017:DHC:8330 >1;
Through Mr.Sunil Goel, Standing Counsel for North DMC with Ms.Supreet Bambra, Advocate.
W.P.(C) 11737/2015
SUMIT VERMA ....Petitioner Ms.Anusuya Salwan arid Mr.Abhiishek
Pundir, Advocates.
Through
VERSUS
NORTH DELHI W^l^CIPAICfqRI^OMJW ,/ ^%Tfttbugh |^|^):Sunil Go^l^^tiading wiM^preet Bambra, jlJlk
~-ry- Respondent Counsel for k t \
■ T-'Y
^ w V W.P.(C) |1780/2015 HARINDER SINGH Petitioner
I

W wi'ttiiiffiii-f:
^Salwan and Mr.Abhishek NORTH DELHI ML#eSg£COlROR^TION Respondent.
/ f. Through Ms.Renu Gupta, Advocate.
\
W.P.(C) 11784/2015
SURENDER KUMAR VATS ....Petitioner
Through Ms.Anusuya Salwan and Mr.Abhishek Pundir, Advocates.
VERSUS
WP(C)Nos. 10055/2015, 10008/2015, 10028/2015, 10032-33/205,’10046/2015, 10051/2016, 10053/2015, 10057-58/2015, 10060/2015, 10064/2015, 11016-17/2015,11025/2015, 11027-28/2015, 11429/2015
11446/2015, 11449/2015, li471/2015, 11531-32/2015, 11737/2015, 11780/2015, 11784-85/2015, 11789/2015, 11792-93/2015, 11796-97/2015, • 11799/2015, 11803/2015, 11805/2015, 3891/2016, 4035/2016,4061-62/2016,4079/2016,11026/2015 Pagel0of23
2017:DHC:8330 o Respondent Mr.Sunil Goel, Standing Counsel for
North DMC with Ms.Supreet Bambra, Advocate.
NORTH DELHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION
Through
VAP.(C) 11785/2015
JITENDER SINGH ....Petitioner
Through^»^tf-’^‘-Ms?Anu^^^ Salwan and Mr.Abhishek i f '1‘ r wets^us
\ ^If^QiteSlATION^^...Respondent NORTH D, .a, ThrouJl^ §nil Goel, Standing Counsel for i DMC with Ms.Su|reet Bambra,, if t i
“iA:
W.P.(C) Ii789/201J
^■5ljr©4UgE7^MiMs;:^hus|i^^ and Mr.Abhishek
''^"‘'•^^-'S3lS^A€vocates.
Petitioner 2^ ^ - 'f NIRMALA n \] a\
VERSUS
NORTH DELHI.MUNICIPAL CORPORATION ..... Respondent, Through Mr.Sunil Goel, Standing Counsel for
North DMC with Ms.Supreet Bambra, Advocate.
W.P.(C) 11792/2015 i'
VIPIN KUMAR GUPTA Petitioner WP(C)Nos. 10055/2015, 10008/2015, 10028/2015, 10032-33/205, 10046/2015, 10051/2016, 10053/2015, 10057-58/2015, 10060/2015, 10064/2015, 11016-17/2015,1 1025/2015, 11027-28/2015, 11429/2015
11446/2015, 11449/2015, 11471/2015, 11531-32/2015, 11737/2015, 11780/2015, 11784-85/2015, 11789/2015, 11792-93/20.15, 11796-97/2015, 11799/2015, 11803/2015, 11805/2015, 3891/2016, 4035/2016, 4061 -62/2016, 4079/2016,11026/2015 Page n of23
2017:DHC:8330 Ms.Anusuya Salwan and Mr.Abhishek
Pundir, Advocates.
Through
VERSUS
Respondent NORTH DELHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION
Through Ms.Renu Gupta, Advocate.
W.P.(C) 11793/2015 ....Petitioner
ANIL KUMAR
[|.A^^y%^lwan and Mr.Abhishek oc^es.
ThiJOifgh 4
NORTH QEL.m’ MUMCIf«Se@ira^TIONRespondent
I I
ThrougM^fwI’^ehu Gupta, Advocate. ini-n I
W.P.(C) 11796/2015
ARVIND KUMAR^^ Petitioner A ^jjhrough Ms.Anusu- wand Mr.Abhishek
Mvoeate^.
V versu; f ' \ NORTH DELHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION Respondent
Through Ms.Renu Gupta, Advocate.
W.P.(C) 11797/2015
HEMRAJ SHARMA Petitioner
Through Ms.Anusuya Salwan and Mr.Abhishek Pundir, Advocates.
WP(C)Nos. 10055/2015, 1OO08/2O15, 10028/2015, 10032-33/205, 10046/2015, 10051/2016, 10053/2015, 10057-58/2015, 10060/2015, 10064/2015, 11446/2015, 11449/2015, 11471/2015, 11531-32/2015, 11789/2015, 11792-93/2015, 11796-97/2015, 11799/2015, 4035/2016, 4061 -62/2016, 4079/2016,11026/2015
11016-17/2015,11025/2015, 11027-28/2015, 11429/2015
11737/2015, 11780/2015, 11784-85/2015,' 11803/2015, 11805/2015, 3891/2016,.
;
2017:DHC:8330
VERSUS
Respondent NORTH DELHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION
Through Ms.Renu. Gupta, Advocate.
W.P.(C) 11799/2015
RAJESH GUPTA
Petitioner Ms.Anusuya Salwan and Mr.Abhishek Pundir, Advocates.
Through vepus*‘
I
LA'l^N^^.. Respondent m UQPRP NORTH del : n r
^ r. petitioner \ AMIT VIRMA Throuphjif^t|ikni|suya Salwan and?Mr.Abhishek f
[-P'N ..... Respondent MrTSunil Goel, Standing Counsel for
North DMC with Ms.Suprret Bambrd^ Advocate.
NORTH DELHI
Through JT
■ \ f
W.P.(C) 11805/2015
KULDEEP VERMA
Petitioner t Throu'gh Ms.Anusuya Salwan and Mr.Abhishek
Pundir, Advocates.
!
VERSUS
WP(C)Nos. 10055/2015, 10008/2015, 10028/2015, 10032-33/205, 10046/2015, 10051/2016, 10053/2015, 10057-58/2015, 10060/2015, 10064/2015; 11016-17/2015,11025/2015, 11027-28/2015, 11429/2015
11446/2015, 11449/2015, 11471/2015, 11789/2015, 1 1792-93/2015, 11796-97/2015, 4035/2016, 4061 -62/2016, 4079/2016, 11026/2015
11531-32/2015, 11737/2015, 11780/2015, 11784-85/2015, 11799/2015, 11803/2015, 11805/2015, 3891/2016, 2017:DHC:8330
Respondent NORTH DELHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION Ms.Renu Gupta, Advocate.
Through
W.P.(C) 3891/2016 , Petitioner
BABITA BHARDWAJ
Through Ms.Anusuya Salwan and Mr.Abhishek Pundir, Advocates.
NORTH DELHr^U^bn^AL,,^^lSlC^'^^ Respondent 0/'Throu|i^^^^!iSC^Goel,^'Sfan%ig Counsel for with^l^^reet Bambra, ■ ■ (Q'A v'"**®* -Ji
0(^te. ',8 r. la Ad; m
W.P.(C) 1035/2016
■ !.
Mm f ..... Petitioner RAJEEV MITTAL ^
NORTH DELHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION ..... Respondent ■
Mr.Sunil Goel, Standing Counsel for North DMC with Ms.Supreet Bambra, Advocate.
Through
W.P.(C) 4061/2016
SATBIR VATS.
Petitioner WP(C)Nos. 10055/2015, 10008/2015, 10028/2015, 10032-33/205, 10046/2015, 10057-58/2015, 10060/2015, 10064/2015, 11016-17/2015,11025/2015, 11446/2015, 11449/2015, 11.471/2015, ------
11792-93/2015, 11796-97/2015, 11799/2015, 10051/2016, 10053/2015, 11027-28/2015, 11429/2015
11531-32/2015, 11737/2015, 11780/2015, 11784-85/2015, 11803/2015,. 11805/2015, 3891/2016,’
11789/2015, . 4035/2016,4061-62/2016,4079/2016, 11026/2015
2017:DHC:8330 r<
Through Ms.Anusuya Salwan and Mr.Abhishek Pundir, Advocates.
VERSUS
Respondent, Through 'Mr.Sunil Goel, Standing Counsel for
North DMC with Ms.Supreet Bam,bra, Advocate.
NORTH DELHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION
W.P.(C) 4062/2016 . ashokkum a ^^^^^UBT ^
^^'^firough ■ c^f||Anusuya^^^^nd Mr.Abhishek
T'-T:^i?iterik5b\dvoc^qs' ^ Petitioner i f \ i

•: v'-
■iy-rsT
NORTH DELHI MUNICIP^^I^jpORATION Rejspondent Throu^!::^'^^l\|^Mi Goel,' StandiiJ Counsel for
W.P:(C)407X^^^ SURENDER
• Through Ms.Anusuya Salwan and Mr.Abhishek
Pundir, Advocates. mA i. r- V rr Petitioner f
\ ■
VERSUS
Respondent
Through Mr.Sunil Goel, Standing Counsel for North DMC with Ms.Supreet Bambra, Advocate.
NORTH DELHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION ! WP(C)Nos. 10055/2015, 10008/2015, 10028/2015, 1OO32-33/205, 10046/2015, 10051/2016, 10053/2015, 1005'7-58/2015, 10060/2015, 10064/2015, 11016-17/2015,11025/2015, .11027-28/2015i 11429/2015
11446/2015, 11449/2015, 11471/2015, 11531-32/2015, 11737/2015, 11780/2015, 11784-85/2015, 11789/2015, 11792-93/2015, 11796-97/2015, 11799/2015, 11803/2015,- 11805/2015, 3891/2016, 4035/2016,4061-62/2016,4079/2016,11026/2015 ■
I h 2017:DHC:8330
W.P.(C) 11026/2015
GANGA RAM SHARMA . ....Petitioner Ms.Anusuya Salwan and Mr.Abhishek
Pundir, Advocates.
Through
VERSUS
.1 • •
Respondent Thi-ough . Mr.Sunil Goel, Standing Counsel fon with Ms.Supreet Bambra, NORTH DELHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION r CORAM:
HON-BLE MS.^j5STICBip)lM
INDERMEltKAUR, j/ ‘
&^KAUR.^ V" 1 This order shall dispdseidfth1s)lbatch of writ petitions.
I ].
At the outset, it is fpdihtftd; oht^l^'at a bunch of similarly placed contractors nad^^^^rtaiff®suitf^^ favour against P^l^^p^i^Kad been filed. That
Regular First Appeal had been disposed of by a Single Bench of this i^md^fea^ecreed in their
Cy v

Court on 01.12.2016 (RFA No.786/2016); it was based on the conseuitr order dated 17.11.2016 arrived inter-se the parties
This Court notes that these writ petitions arise out of the grievances of the petitioner who were and are still operating as contractors and doing works for the North Delhi Municipal
WP(C)Nos. 10055/2015, 10008/2015, 10028/2015, 10032-33/205; 10046/2015, 10051/2016, 10053/2015, 10057-58/2015, 10060/2015, 10064/2015, 11016-17/2015,11025/2015, 11027-28/2015, 11429/2015
11446/2015, 11449/2015, 11471/2015, 11531-32/2015, 11737/2015, 11780/2015, 11784-85/2015, 11789/2015, 11792-93/2015, 11796-97/2015, 11799/2015, 11803/2015, 11805/2015, 3891/2016, 4035/2016, 4061 -62/2016, 4079/2016, 11026/2015. Page 16 of23
2017:DHC:8330 V- Corporation. All the petitioners are duly registered contractors registered with the respondent Corporation and have been carrying out various works of the respondent. The petitioners having completed the said works to the satisfaction of the respondent for which bills had been prepared and certified but complete payment not having been received by the petitioners had accordingly been constrained to file these petitions. Contention of *lfee petmn^-s being that they are
\ •* claiming ony!ti^ Mis'^jc^^ been d^^ei^ed for payment and for wMch^^mounP^^fl^^ \
JUDGMENT

4 Th| stand ofthe res^3[#^*s that there is a spe|ific clause in the agreement which is bipdiigtu^^^he parties and which was to the effect that^ ^ sul^ect to the availability of'lin%i,1n;p§foufaf»h®^^f^^^^^ from and the payments shall iTe'^miadesfStrt'ctly on 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; r".

A. j. interest would also not be payable. iv WP(C)Nos. 10055/2015, 10008/2015. 10028/2015, 10032-33/205, 10046/2015, 10051/2016, 10053/2015, 10057-58/2015, 10060/20.15, 10064/2015, 11016-17/2015,11025/2015, 11027-28/2015, 11429/2015 11446/2015, 11449/2015, 11471/2015, 11531-32/2015, 11737/2015, 11780/2015, 11784-85/2015, 11789/2015, 11792-93/2015, 11796-97/2015, 11799/2015, 11803/2015, 11805/2015, 3891/2016, 4035/20.16,4061-62/2016,4079/2016,11026/2015 ■pagel7of23 2017:DHC:8330

5 The relevant extract of Clause 7 of the ‘General Conditions of Contract for Municipal Coiporation ot 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 of bills shall be strictly on Queue basis i.e. first the past liabilities will be cleared and after that the release ofpaymentfor passed bills be in order ofthe demand received at HQ under particular head ofaccounts. Ho interest shall be payable to tji^eicontrmror^in^^a^of delay in payment on account of availability offundsff^he p^tfep^^d oflticcomi^ofMCD." ' '' ■ * *

6 This befcfhe'slfand.oT^he5^osppndenf’CQtp the petition had progre'sse^^and the rnffto&Mfoitak up f6$*final hearing.. I Holvever, at this stagel as|]n!blbd supra, attention|of this Court

I. I* has been %rawn to the ju4glh'pnf Ws'sfed by the SingleiBench of this Court in mA out of decrees which had enur^!»?m’TayQlj.rf©h|^iHiTjp§e<Gont-^to^ who had preferred to file civil suits instead of fiTirf|‘^itpetitions. "v" nonf \ rt \ In the course of these proceedings on 07.09.2016, the additional submission of the respondent was noted which was 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 the petitioner was that there is a mis-utilization of funds in the ‘non- WP(C)Nos. 10055/2015, 10008/2015, 10028/2015, 10032-33/205, 10046/2015, 10051/2016, 10053/2015, 10057-58/2015, 10060/2015, 10064/2015, 11016-17/2015,11025/2015, 11027-28/2015, 11429/2015 11446/2015, 11449/2015, 11471/2015, 11531-32/2015, 11737/2015, 11780/2015. 11784-85/2015, 11789/2015, 11792-93/2015. 11796-97/2015, 11799/2015, ■ 11803/2015, 4035/2016. 4061 -62/2016, 4079/2016, 11026/2015 11805/2015, 3891/2016, Page 18 of23 O' 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. Court is o^lhb'^yjiw^ihatltieErd^s^irassed^RFA No. 786/2016 this Court is,*"^ f I f A|-view^tHatj:4sik|e$i|ions disposed off on the sarh^ and condittfe^abfMpre is no dispStelo the fact that " I the case If these petitioner^fifsw^affto those who wer^arties in the m <1 ■

10 The tetoi^-^ofNlI clMf^^^ ‘V- J RFA.

I. ss OTder/^'SssX^^^m^ 17.11.2016 and u reproduced in RFawp ^S:^ ”(i) The appellants shallfilefresh compilations, complete in all respects in respect ofthe 4'\ respondents and the other contractors, irrespective of w’hether they have filed any appeals/suits ofrecover)' or not, so that there is a clarity about their priority in the wail list.

(ii) The appellants undertake to.strictly adhere to the tirheline mentioned in the. compilation, for releasingpayments to the respondents. (Hi) No payment shall be released out ofturn by the appellants. WP(C)Nos. 10055/2015, 10008/2015. 10028/2015, 10032-33/205, 10046/2015, 10051/2016, I0053/20I'5, 10057-58/2015, 10060/2015, 10064/2015, 11016-17/2015,11025/2015, 11027-28/2015,. 11429/201^5; 11446/2015, 11449/2015, 11471/2015, 11531-32/2015, 11737/2015, 11780/2015, 11784-85/2015, 11789/2015, 11792-93/2015, 11796-97/2015, 11799/2015, 11803/2015, 11805/2015, 3891/2016. 4035/2016,4061-62/2016,4079/2016, 11026/2015

(iv) The appellants shall ensure that the budgetfor release ofamounts under the head of Non-Plan Expenditure is increased on a regular basis so that the release ofpayments be expedited to the respondents and other contractors in the wait list, even prior to the dates ofpriority mentioned against their names.

(v) The appellants shall upload the compilation on their websites for ease ofaccess and update it regularly at the end ofeach monthfor the respondents and others to know what their status is in the wait list. can H.-:-

(vi) Having regard to the fact that the appellants expect the respondents to stay their\ hands and not pursue their legal remedies for execution ofthe impugnedjudgments and decrees for a period mentio^ed^li^eh^^i^l’lT^^eed^t^ interest shall be payable to the respondents on thp^rincip^^dmbtnk after ^'iry^^th^ years and ninety days reckonedfrom the^ht^^^^ncerned^^i^^nh^ the respondentsfoi payment. In ot^r a cus^m^^^^^^^^ngprovid^ to t^ Head Quarters of both the appellan^or completih'gji^^^r^^^^ive work ofreaving and diarising the bills receiveifr^different « combined listf^ayment and it is agreed tha^for the saidperiod, no i^tjrest^^m^be payable to the respo/^ents.

(vii) It is ^^ther agreed that thifj^^ll^p^^Ml not be liable to p^ interest on the principal arrtmnts paydbp!t,to^^^^f^.niei^u^e^^e impugned Judgments and decrees, for a^perid^/ofM^e'^a^i^iil^ned frop^h^^p,e^ expiry of 90 days mentionedabove^^^*^t^^^

(viii) However, immediateiy^Qg'^expmyxofM.threb'^gais^s noted above, if the amounts remain outstanding for any reason whatsoever, the appellants shall pay interest @ 9%. per annum on the principal amount to the respondents, for the remaining period, tiU: realization. \V I % (, (ix) It is further agreed that the aforesaid arrangement ofpayment of interest by the appellants @ 9% per annum on the outstanding principal amount to the respondents shall continue onlyfor a period oftwo years, reckonedfrom the end ofthe thirdyear as mentioned in clause (vii) hereinabove. WP(C) Nos. 10055/2015, 10008/2015, 10028/2015, 10032-33/205, 10046/2015, 10051/2016, 10053/2015, 10057-58/2015, 10060/2015, 10064/2015, 11016-17/2015,11025/2015, 11027-28/2015, 11429/2015 11446/2015, 11449/2015, 11471/2015, 11531-32/2015, 11737/2015, 11780/2015, 11784-85/2015, 11789/2015, 11792-93/2015, 11796-97/2015, 11799/2015, 11803/2015, 11805/2015, 3891/2016, 4035/2016, 4061-62/2016, 4079/2016, 11026/2015

(x) Ifthe amounts remain payable by the appellants even thereafter, the respondents shall be entitled to seek legal recourse for execution of the impugnedjudgments and decrees and claim interest on the decretal amountfrom day one.

(xi) The respondents undertake that- in view of the settlement arrived at with the appellants, as recorded RFA786/2()16 & RFA 192/2016 Page 4 of[9] above, they shall not take any steps to file execution petitions in respect of the impugned Judgments and decrees, subject matter ofthe present appeals, for the period mentioned hereinabove.

11,400 characters total

(xii) As for the already pending execution petitions, orders passed in these proceedings shall be placed on record so that they can be disposed ofby the concerned courts on the ‘5.': 'ih execution petitions in case ofdefault.on ffihhp/eltdpts, as^s^en detailed above. ” n V,|p;e|;|m^^^\Corpo^i'oi?'(iMr. Sunil Goel) also 4e ^G^nsel who before the RFA Gourt. ■fiff............................................................ contractors^ and the’^Corplof^ion %i|itlm^to the/parties in the present petiti©p^^s!;wHl, The respond’^tj^feoiporation will strictly adhere to the timeliiTrei^l^fTJel^^g^^ayE^ntJt^he petitioners which is

11 Learned ^pnsel a. was I i at on 17.11.2016 fnter-se those

12. This consent I I i-f to the effect that besides the fact that no payment shall be released out of turn to any party, a period ofthree 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 be made to the contractors. In other words, a cushion of 90 days is agreed to be provided to the Head Quarter/respondent for completing WP(C) Nos. 10055/2015, 10008/2015, 10028/2015, 10032-33/205, 10046/2015, 10051/2016, 10053/2015, 10057-58/2015, 10060/2015, 10064/2015, 11016-17/2015,11025/2015, 11027-28/2015, 11429/2015 11446/2015, 11449/2015, 11471/2015, 11531-32/2015, 11737/2015, 11780/2015, 11784-85/2015, 11789/2015, 11792-93/2015, 11796-97/2015, 11799/2015, 11803/2015, 11805/2015, 3891/2016, 4035/2016,4061-62/2016,4079/2016, 11026/20.15 V: 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 ^s^b^h^remaini^’^p.^iod till realization. The Dv the respondent \ prin^ip'dl amount to the at^Vor mMnt of in^rbst Corporati^ ^ Stoll continu^|.l!^|9^lperiod of two ylars reckoned ik&l lilhiioned in the aforesaid aiT; \ contractors sub-clause (vii) and from the Ind of the third h I '■■y (:Sh!ffetbr‘s>y^l be ^t^^S'^^-^legal filing an execution d^f^he^Briftr^amountagin^ this order will be treated..^rjgJ^^ent Cofporation, even if this amo^u recourse by thereafter the /U 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 list even prior to the date of priority mentioned against their names. \ as a WP(C)Nbs. 10055/2015, 10008/2015, 10028/2015, 10032-33/205, 10046/2015, 10051/2016, 10053/2015, 10057-58/2015, 10060/2015, 10064/2015, 11016-17/2015,11025/2015, 11027-28/2015, 11429/2015 11446/2015 11449/2015, 11471/2015, 11531-32/2015, 11737/2015, 11780/2015, 11784-85/2015, 11805/2015, 3891/2016, 11796-97/2015, 11799/2015, 11803/2015, 11789/2015, 11792-93/2015, 4035/2016, 4061 -62/2016, 4079/2016,11026/2015 /■ This Court thus notes that the consent order of 17.[1] ].2016 reproduced in RFA No.786/2016 is modified to the extent that there being judgment and decree in favour of the contractors in the present case; hov^ever all other terms 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-payment.Rapper.the^ferms detailed supra) shall become executable. ^iii&passed.by<^this|Co will be no % \ S," € 0 it©'*"'' Ne^dl^sfto 13 state fully adhtered to in true lett|riaf»it by respondent r|o. 1 and will I..,[1] ■ ■ thus not constrain any par|y©l!^:^ppf‘ ga|j|i the Court on this count.