1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR Civil Application [W] No.2250 of 2011 AND Writ Petition No.4363 of 2010 [Contractors & Builders Association of Vidarbha & others Vs. The Vidarbha Irrigation Devpt. Corporation & another] Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. Mr. Sunil Manohar, Adv., for the petitioners. Mr. S.G. Jagtap, Adv., for respondent no.1. Mr. D.M. Kale, AGP for respondent no.2. ----- CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI AND A.P. BHANGALE, JJ. DATE : 02nd September, 2011. 1. Heard learned Adv. Mr. S.V. Manohar with Adv. Mr. Gaikwad for the petitioners, learned Adv. Mr. S.G. Jagtap for respondent no.1 and learned AGP Mr. D.M. Kale for respondent no.2. 2. The matter is already admitted by this Court on 3rd August, 2011, and leave was given to petitioners to move for appropriate interim orders if occasion therefor arose. 3. Mr. Manohar points out that an advertisement has now been issued and 5th September, 2011 is the last date for responding to it. A similar condition requiring the contractors like petitioners to furnish an undertaking that in case of shortage of funds, 2 they would not claim any compensation from respondent no.1 for delay in payment of bills of works is again incorporated. Learned Counsel states that in the reply filed while opposing the petition, and in the reply filed to present Civil Application, the Corporation has disclosed that normally payments are made within one year and in exceptional situations, time upto two years is required. He contends that if any definite time limit in this respect is specified, the petitioners are ready and willing to abide by the same and to participate in tender invitation process. He also states that it is essential to have a definite policy in this respect and, therefore, the respondent no.1 should be directed to formulate the one. 4. Adv. Mr. Jagtap contends that compensation envisaged is only interest on delayed payment of bills and when funds are not available, payments get delayed for no fault on the part of Vidarbha Irrigation Development Corporation. He further contends that Vidarbha Irrigation Development Corporation already has appropriate policy for dealing with such issues. 5. Learned AGP is supporting the arguments of Adv. Mr. Jagtap. 6. In this situation, we find that ends of justice can be met with by directing the respondent no.1 to accept the undertaking of petitioners or similar contractors that they will not claim any interest for delay in payment 3 of bills of works, normally for one year and in exceptional circumstances for two years. If such undertaking is furnished, respondent no.1 shall evaluate their offers along with other offers received by it in response to advertisement of Tender Notice No.2/2011-12 and similar advertisements in future. 7. In so far as the question of formulation of any definite policy in this respect is concerned, in view of the above facts noticed by us, we do not, at this stage, find it appropriate to dwell upon said issue. Whether such policy exists, or then it needs to be formulated is, therefore, left open for consideration at appropriate stage as and when occasion therefor arises. 8. With this direction to respondent no.1, we partly allow the Writ Petition, and as Writ Petition is disposed of in view of above directions, Civil Application is also partly allowed and disposed of. 9. Steno copy of this order be supplied to parties as per rules. Judge Judge |Hedau| 4