Hemraj Sharma v. North Delhi Municipal Corporation

VERSUS

NORTHDELHIMHNICIP.AL GO'RTG^tlON Respondent Tmdugh ^ Gd'el;.sStdnding Counsel for n' /'a' ■Tf;A" + W.P.(C) 71028/2015 '•t / AMITS^WAT Petitioner Through, MsiAtihsuya Salwan andMr.Abhishek Ruhdir, Advocates,. ' versus. ' ■ ', •. r' NORTHDELHIMUNICPPALCOLORATION Respondent Through Mr.Sunil Goel, Standing Counsel for NorthDMC with Ms.Supreet Bambra, Advocate. +. VAP.(C) 11429/2015 VIDYADEVI Lversus NORTH DELHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION Respondent Advocate. + W.P.(C)11446/2015, n NARESHKUMAR....A; N-'' n n Petitioner 'cThrough rLMs^^usuya Saiwan-and Mr.Abhishek; versus V' NORTHDELHIMUNICIpMtlcMoRATION Respondent Through/';v'ML'Mnil Goel, Standing Counsel for. nnn 2■■ t/pHorih/^ withMs.SupreetBambra, ■;. Advocate.: -I- W.P.(C) 11449/2045 yNAv..- ■vvL'h ATUL GUPTA ' Petitioner Through Ms.Anusuya Salwan and Mr.Abhishek Pundir, Advocates.

VERSUS

NORTHDELHIMUIMCIPAL CORPORATION Respondent W.P.(C)11471/2015- SANJAY Through Ms.Anusuya Salwan and Mr.Abhishek ■Pundir, Advocates.

VERSUS

NORTHDELI-nMUNICIPAL CORPORATION Respondent Through Mr.Sunil Goel, Standing Counsel for,, ■■. NorthI)MC withMs.Supreet Bambra, ',, ^ t i.Advocate. ' ■ + W.P.(C) 1153T/2015 SA.NDEEP.GARG.■.-... 'Petitioner Through/hTt^^h|iA Salwan andMr.Abhishek; Rhiidilr, Advocates.versus v:,., NORTHDELffl •••••'Respondent '■■ ' --'^Through., MnShrf Goelf.'Standing Counsel for f- ''Norta'TfelCMithMs.Supreet Bambra,: k" Advocate. W.P.(C) 11532/2015 MR.- CHARANJEET Through Ms.Anusuya Salwan andMr.Abhishek Pundir, Advocates. + + n n ' y" Through Mr.Siinil Goel, Standing Counsel for North DMC with Ms.Supreet Bambra, Advocate. W.-P.(C)11737/2015 SUMITVERMA ' Petitioner Through Ms.Anusuya Salwan and Mr.Abhishek

VERSUS

NORTH DELPII MHNICIPAL.CG)RP©RATIQN Respondent,;Through, /j/MpiSunii Goep Standing Counsel for n ' 'T l/A:hTifhiblM;.:lp|p[C with;Ms:SupreetBa W.P.(C)1-1780/2015 HARINDERSINGH ' ' "^1.....Petitioner Through;. "■ Ms.Arinsuya;Salwan arid Mr.Abhishek,, ' ■ ' 'h'^TunEiri Ad^ ' Nersus^ Through. Ms.Renu Gupta, Advocate. W.P.(C) 11784/2015 SURSNDER KUMAR VATS Petitioner Through Ms.Anusuya Salwan and Mr.Abhishek NORTH DELHI MUNICIPAL-CORPORATION Respondent Advocate. + VAP.(C)11785/2015.

JITENDER SINGH Petitioner Through n Ms.Anusuya Salwan and Mr.Abhishek n Pundir-' Advocates. • versus NORTHDELffiMUNICJ^^COIUPOIUTION'...^Respondent Throu^/Lb'|^S:iM^ Goel, Standing Counsel for;Nolitk DMC with Ms.Supreet Bambra,; L:,Advbcate. W.P.(C)11.789/2015:y NIRMALA !'D f -. "i-v-vt Throhgh. MSiAhusuya Salwan and Mr.Abhishek PundirvAdv0cates.

VERSUS

NORTH DELPII M-UNICIPAL CORPORATION Respondent Advocate. -4.; Through Ms.Anusuya Salwan and Mr.Abhishek Pundir,Advocates.

VERSUS

NORTH DELHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION Respondent Through Ms.Renu Gupta,Advocate. -I- W.P.(C)11793/2015 ANIL KUMAR Petitioner 'Tln-ough,.Ms.Anusuya Salwan and Ml".Abhishek...p.; n Piiiidir.,,Advocates. NORTHDELHIMUNICIPAL,■C.OfePORATION Respondent Through ■ ' Ms.Renu Gupta, Advocate. + W.P.(C) 11796/2015 ir/v. fti., / ARVINDKUhdARSINdt'^/tf W petitioner Through Ms.Anusuya,Sdlwan-andMl-.Abhishek A,.Pundip,,,.Adypeates. versus ■ NORTHDELI-IIMUNICIPAL CORPORATION Respondent Through Ms.P^enu Gupta, Advocate. + W.P.(C) 11797/2015 I-IEMRAJ SHARMA ^ Petitioner 2017:DHC:8980 V versus NORTHDELHIMUNICIPALCORPORATION Respondent + W.P.(C)1 1799/2015 RAJESH GUPTA.Through Ms.Anusiiya Salwan and Mr.Abhishek versius, n n n.; NORTHDELIfMUNICIPA^^gQRPb Respondent l,/„ Throkgh-.v'; GuptapAi^ + W.P.(C)11803/2015 A A v amitverma Through / MAApusuya Salwan anTMr.Abhishek, n Pundip Advocates. versus k NORTHDELHIMJNlLfSL Respondent Thiough Mr.Sunil Goel, Standing Counsel for, North DMC with Ms.Suprret Bambra, Advocate. + V[7].P.(C)11805/2015 ' KITDEEPVERMA Petitioner 2017:DHC:8980 + -i- NORTHDELHIMUNICIPAI.CORPORATION Respondent W.P.(C)3891/2016 BABITA BHARDWAJ Petitioner Through Ms.Anusuya Salwan and Mr.Abhishek

VERSUS

NORTHDELHI-^MIJNlblPAL.CQRPb Respondent;; Through-; p. Goel,"Stancling Counsel for /" with ]\3is,Shpreet Bambra, hbd;''i/4iv®'6Me. ' ' W.P.(C)te5/2016 PhMi/f RAJEEV MITTAL ^ ^ C;^ \^ petitioner..'i. Through ' 'MLi/^husuyaBMwan.and Mr.Abhishek n,n Pundir;Advocates..' versus A ' IT " „ ' Advocate. W.P.(C)4061/2016 Through Ms.Aniisuya Salwan and Mr.Abhishek Pundir, Advocates.

VERSUS

Phroiigh Mr.Sunil Goel, Standing Counsel for North DMC with Ms.Supreet Bambra, n Advocate. + W.P.(C)4G62/2016 ASHOKKUMAR.,•;•, Phioiigh mlAnusuya S-alwah;and Mr.Abhishek, Tundir,-Advocates';; n T versus b'- i: ■;.Ah.';;;.. b NORTHDELHIMUNICIPyU.CORPORATION Rtepondent Thiou^h...:.;. J^ySunil Goel, Standing Counsel for,a'h'b. 'bb;bNortLDMC withMs.Sup - b -k' 'iA Advdcate. •, + W.PXC)4O79/i0d6b'',;' -A ■ ■■ y " SURENDERKUMARUERMA,. " Petitioner Through Ms.Aniisuya Salwan and Mr.Abhishek

VERSUS

V\^.P.(C) 11026/2015 GANGA RAM SHARMA Rirough Ms.Aniisuya Salwan and Mr.Abhishek Piindir, Advocates. versus northDELI-IImunicipalcorporation Respondent, Thiough Mr.Sunil Goel, Standing Counsel for. NortkDMC with Ms.SupreetBambra, V n /Acfvocaite.. • CORAM: • ' b''"' ",./ HONRLE MS,4ySTICE:II^I]])il6^^ INBERMEET KAUR., ',n 'r

1 Thisordershalldisposeofthisfcbatchofwritpetitions.

2 Atthe outset,it ispointedbut|hat a bunch ofsimilarly placed contractors i»dified.derta!n"sUii^^ favour against which a;%e|ttlar KiWlLpL-had been filed. That Regular First Appeal had been disposed ofby a Single Bench ofthis Courton01.12.2016(RFA No.786/2016);itwasbasedonthe consent orderdated 17.11.2016 arrived inter-setire parties

3 This Court notes that these writ petitions arise out of the 4' Coipoiation. All the petitioners are duly registered contractors registered withtherespondentCorporation andhave beencarryingout various works oftlie respondent. The petitioners having completed the said woiksto the satislaction oftherespondentfor 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. ConteHtion of the petifibners being that they are claiming only:fhosebills whiehhgd been duly,pertified for payment and foi whichhp aniouiif'hhjfrbeeifphf|llr^ t

4 Thestand oftherespohddif thatthereisaspelifioclausein the agreement which is bindi^mp^nAe parties and which wasto the effect that the PTObnt^^ availability offunds]n.particular head.-.ofaccount 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; inteiest would also not be payable. /(r

5 The lelevant extract of Clause 7 ofthe 'General Conditions of Contract for Municipal Corporation of Delhi Works' highlighted by thelespondent Corporation is reproduced herein as underi- "Thepaymentofpassed bills will be subject to availability offunds inparticular head ofaccountfrom time to time in MCD. Payment,ofbillsshall be strictly on Queue basis i.e.firstthepastliabilities Mnllbe clearedandafter thatthe release ofpaymentfor passedbills he in orderofthe demandreceivedatHQ underparticular headofaccounts. No interestshall bepayable to the contractor incase ofdelay inpaymenton accountof non-availability of fundsin theparticular hepdofaccount'ofMCD."

6 This being.,.the stanchof/the.respondentWdiToration,the petition had progresseTandthe niafl^'.wad';fe up fbr-fiialhearing,

7 However, at this stagef asinbibd'supra, attentionIbf this Court has been drawn to theju|gn^nt|as^d by the SingleiBench ofthis Court in RPkt which had enuredin^favdur,pTsuchTiketcontractors who had preferred to file civil suits instead offiling writpetitions., 8 In the course ofthese proceedings on 07.09.2016,the additional submission ofthe respondent was noted which wasthatthe payments being asked for by the petitioner are under'non-planned head'and the 2017:DHC:8980 ny r head'. This affidavitis on record and the details ofmoneysought 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 lecord an aifidavit-stating the amounts expended in the'non-planned to be expended m the'non-planned head'have been given.

9 CourtIS oftheviewdhattheorders,passedinRPA No.786/2016 this Court is ofthe view thatfhesdpetitions'can-also be disposed off onthesametepis and conditionsjqsthereis no dispniteho thefactthat were.;parties in the the case ofthese petitionerSissahSto those who fLFA.

10 The teims of the coiisenfdfder.passed on17.11.2016 and reproduced inRFA%J8d/2Q16read£as- ' ' ' (I)rheappellantsshallfilefreshcoinpllalions,completeinallrespectsinrespectofthe _ respondents and the other contractors, irrespective of whether they havefiled any appeals/suits ofrecovery or not..lo thatthere isaclarityabouttheirpriority in the M>ait list.

(ii) Th, appellant, undertake,o eiriedy adhere,o the titmline trtentioned it, the

(iv) The appellantsshallensure that the budgetforrelease ofamounts underthe headof Non-Plan Expenditure is increasedon aregular basisso thatthe release ofpaymentscan be expedited to the respondents and other contractors in the waitlist, even prior to the dates ofpriority mentionedagainsttheir names.

(v) The appellantsshallupload the compilation on their websitesfor ease ofaccess and update Itregularly atthe endofeach monthfor the respondents andothers to Imow.what their status is in the wait list. (vi)I-Iaving regard to thefact that the appellants expect the respondents to stay their hands and notpursue their legalremediesfor execution ofthe impugnedjudgments and decreesforaperiod mentioned hereincfter. it is agreed thatinterestshall bepayable to n the re.spondenis on theprincipal amountafter expiry dfthree years and ninet)'days reckonedfi-om thgdaletheconcerned^iyi^n hadpasseddhefi^ re.spondentsfor payment.In other words,a Quartersof both the appellantsforcoinpletih^^fmr0^m^^workcffedehmganddiarisingthe sj receivedfi-om differentDivmprnfin^^e^dmngacombinedlistforpaymentanditis agreedthat-forthesaidperiod,no mtfibiffhaffepayable totherespondents.

(vii) It isfurther agreed that not be liable to pay interest on the principal amounts payable. toftlwfniesporM^if^im impugnedjudgments and decrees,for a period ofthree'years reclmnedfirdm-t'he date of expiry of90 days mentioned above. n n',

(viii) Hoyvever, immediately on:expu-y ofduee years 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.

(ix) It ISfurther agreed thafthe aforesaid arrangement ofpayment ofinterest by the appellants @ 9%per annum on the o.ut.standing principal amount to the respondents shallcontinue onlyfor aperiodoftM>o years,reckonedfrom the endofthe thirdyear as 2017:DHC:8980 lA A' ^ (x)Ijtheamountsremainpayable bythe appellantseven thereafter,therespondentsshall be entitled to seek legalrecoursefor execution ofthe impugnedjudgments anddecrees andclaim interest on the decretalamountfrom day one.

(xi) The respondents undertake that in vieM> of the settlement arrived at with the appellants,asrecordedRFA786/2016&MA 192/2016Page4of9above,theyshallnot take any steps tofile execution petitions in respect ofthe impugnedjudgments and _ decrees,subjectmatterofthepresentappeals,fortheperiodmentionedhereinabove. (xii)Asfor the alreadypending executionpetitions, orderspassedin theseproceedings. shallbeplacedon recordso thattheycan be disposedofbythe concernedcotirtson the basisofthe consent order, withlXbertygrantedto the respondents tofilejresh exectUion petitionsincasecfpfault,onthejpartoftheappellants,as.has:beendetailedabove."

11 LearnedOTnsela|)j[3];eann|,fbM^ (Mt.Sunil Goal) was alsothe counsel who hadappdare|beforetheKFA'Gourt.' 17.11.2016 inter-se those contractors' and the'-Co]|»r|iQh the parties in the present petitions'as:wdlL The respondentu-Corporation will strictly adhereto thetimelineforreleasing'paymerT thepetitioners whichis to the effectthat besidesthe factthatno paymentshall be released out ofturnto any party,a period ofthree years and 90daysreckonedfrom. the datethe concerned Division has passedthe bills ofthe Contractors for paymentshall be the period from which the paymentshall startto 2017:DHC:8980 vi 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 amount to the contractor's foptheu-emaining'periodtillrealization. The aforesaid arrangeniehf for payment of infefes't 'by the respondent Corporation @-9% on\ the■vOUtsM'iphg principal amount to the contractors shall continud'ohly ■f0r,.;a of two years reckoned from the end of the third yeaytas mentioned in the sub-clause (vii) and it this amount remains, payable'bydliei'respondent Corporation, even theieafter the contractors^ will be entitled tO'"Seek'legal recourse by filing an execution of-tie.entire amount andthis 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 V /I This Courtthusnotesthatthe consentorder of17.1].2016reproduced in 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 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-payifienf(as perJhe(terms detailed supra) shall become execufable. f" n.. 7

13 NeepesSto state tl|i|ijis|g|passed bflljifCourt will be fully adhered to intrue letteE:an|'^itbyrespondentSo. I and will thusnotconstrain any partyto:approaOlr(heCourton this count.

14 No furthef..orders are called for op:■these,.petltion[5]..w'fjaey are disposed of " y..''by-;;-i- 1/ L J A