I .tJ 65, 66, 68 to 79, 80 to 9L ,F IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI WP(CINo.L25612007 & CMNo.224312007' WP(CINo'66,45/?0-07, wp(ct No. zzzzlzooz c clvl Nlo. r+z tglzooz, wp(ct No. zg g+/zo.oz CM No.14892/2OO7, WP(C)No.797O|2OO7 & CM No.15O8O/2OOZ, p(ciNo.7003/2007 & cM No.13290/2007, WP(ClNo.t o14{2.OpB eM No.rgag/zoog, wp(ctNo,rorzlzoog a cM Nlo.rggzlzpp.8, Wp(CtNo.1O+1/ZOOA A CM No.ZOZglZOOg, Wp(CtNlo.tZZOlZOOg CM No.245Ol2OO8, WP(C)No.2O27|2OO8 & CM No.3915/2OO8, WP(CINo.2O9O/2OO8 & CM No.3981/2OO8, WP(CINo.2O92l2O9,1 wp(Cltrto.2O98/2OO8 & CM No.399al2o08, WP(CtNo'53s,3129.OI & crq No.tozz+/zooa, wp(cttuo.sgs+/zoog c clvt tuo.rozzs.ltpa, WP(CINo.5355/2OO8 & CM No.1O226/2008, WP(CINo.5356/08 F CM ruo.tozzzlzoog, wp(ctlrto.se83/2oog & cu ruo.toge8/zoo8, WP(CtNo.5768/2OO8 & CM No.11O54/2OO8, WP(ClNo.577OlO8 & CM No.11055/2008, WP(CINo.577U2008, WP(C)No.5773120O8 & CM No.LL059/2008, WP(CINo.5775120O8 & CM No.LL06L/09' WP(CINo.5777l2OO8 & CM No.11O64/O8 and WP(CINo.7342108 ?,i 1 Shri Chand Jain M/s Poddar Construction & Anr. Anu Agarwal Naresh Kumar Garg Nagesh Pal Aggarwal Naresh Kumar Aggarwal Aamir Hussain Sh. Mohan Lal Khatri Sandeep Malhotra Ram Chander Dager Naresh Kumar Bansal Atul Gupta Anil Kumar Sandeep Khatri Sh. Rakesh Aggarwal Sh. Deepak Khatri Karambir Singh Khatri M/s K.K. Enterprises Ajay Bansal Rajesh Gupta Subhash Gupta Petitioner Petitioner Petitioner Petitioner Petitioner Petitioner Petitioner Petitioner Petitioner Petitioner Petitioner Petitioner Petitioner Petitioner Petitioner Petitioner Petitioner Petitioner Petitioner Petitioner Petitioner f Signed By:RAM DATT Signing Date:04.07.2024 15:32 Certify that the digital and physical file have been compared and the digital data is as per the physical file and no page is missing. Signature Not Verified Shiv Shankar GuPta Petitioner Sunil Bansal Petitioner Ashok Dua Petitioner Anil Chauhan Petitioner Ghanshyam Dass Petitioner Through : Mr.Karan Singh Bhati and Ms.Rekha Giri, Advocates for the Petitioner Versus M.C.D. & ORS. ResPondents . \ Through : Mr.Amit K. Paul, Adv. for the respondent/MCD. \v - Mr. Sanjay Rathi & Mr. Kapil, Kr' Dagar, Advs' for Mr. Sanjeev Sabharwal, Adv. for the .* . resPondent/McD. Mr. T.C. Sharma, Assistant Engineer, CD Xl Sl Raj Kumar, PS N. Vihar Mr. Mukesh Anand, Adv. for the respondent/UOl. Mr. Sanjeev Sabharwal, Adv' for the respondent/MCD Sl Sita Ram, PS Rajouri Garden. ' Mr. Ajay Arora and Mr. Kapil Dutta, Advs. for the respondent/MCD. Ms. Suparna Srivastava and Mr. Aditya Shankar, Advs. for the respondent/MCD. 1 ' Ms. Maninder Acharya, Adv' for the # ffiR:?*:1liilll3;or the Government or NCr ORDER 16. L2.2008 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S. SISTANI 1. Whether reporLers of local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment ? 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? 3, Whether the Judgment should be reported in the Digest? \o I \1 G.S. SISTANI, L (ORAL): 1. As agreed by learned counsel for the parties, by this common order the above said petitions are being disposed of. Since facts are not in dispute in the above said cases, for the sake of convenience, the facts of the petition [WP(C)No.568312008] are being noticed. 2. The petitioner is a Civil Contractor duly registered with the MCD and carried out civil works for the MCD. The petitioner has completed the said work, which was allotted, to the entire satisfaction of the respondent and for which his bills were prepared and passed by the MCD but no payments have been made. lt is not disputed before this Court that in all these matters which are being disposed of by the common order, work has been completed to the complete satisfaction of the respondents and the bills have been raised and passed, but payments could not be made on account of the fact that the MCD had not received the payments from the Delhi Government. 3. During the pendency of these petitions the counsel for National Capital Territory of Delhi was asked to appear in the matter. By an order dated L2.1L2008 it was directed that a meeting be t JJ I \l \- convened in the office of Chief Seqretary which should be attended by the Qommissioner, MCD and the Secretary (Department of Rural Development) and minutes of this meeting were directed to be filed in the Court, The MCD was also directed to produce all the relevant documents. The MCD was further directed to state on affidavit as to when undisputed payments would be released. Minutes of the Meeting shows that the projects were awarded after obtaining sanction from the Delhi Government. Affidavit in compliance of the order of L2.11.2008 has been filed. The minutes of Meeting which have been filed are reproduced hereinbelow: ,,MINUTES OF THE MEETING HELD IN THE CHAMBER OF CHIEF SECRETARY, SHRI RAKESH MEHTA ON O4TH DECEMBER, 2OO8, 2OO8 AT I.2.OO NOON REGARDING THE CASE OF SUBHASH GUPTA VS MCD, CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.577OI2OO8 PENDING BEFORE THE DELHI HIGH COURT. List of officers, who attended the meeting is annexed as at Annexure-1. 1. The Engineer in Chief (MCD) explained that the cash liabilities to the tune of Rs.31.12 crores relates to the works which were executed by the MCD in rural villages and on rural roads prior to the constitution of the Delhi Rural Development Board. The works for which this payment is pending were completed in the year 2006- 07. These works were approved by the MCD and awarded prior to the Constitution of Delhi Rural Development Board. Therefore there are committed liabilities and should be paid by the Government of NCT of Delhi. He further stated that a Civil Writ petition 4. I { L/ t \n \ \/ No.577012008 is pending in the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi and the next date of hearing is 16.12.2008. That Hon'ble High Court has given directions on the last date of hearing that the Chief Secretary, Government of NCT of Delhi should convene a meeting in his chamber to resolve this issue. 2. Pr. Secretary (Finance) stated that this is committed liability and the amount of Rs.31.12 crore would be released by the Government of NCT of Delhi provided MCD gives list of all those works undertaken by them duly certified by Engineer-in-Chief, Finance Advisor (MCD) and approved by Commissioner, MCD. These certified list of works should be submitted by the MCD to the Project Director, Rural Development by 05.12.2008 and thereafter Project Director, Rural Development would process and submit to the Finance Deptt. For approval of funds to release to the MCD for clearing these committed liabilities. Engineer-in-Chief informed that with the payment of this amount there would be no committed liabilities left and they would not ask for any money in future in this regard. 3. The Chief Secretary directed that the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi may be informed by filing an affidavit by the MCD that in principle Government of NCT of Delhi has agreed to release the payment of Rs.31.12 crore to the MCD. Commissioner, MCD, assured that the needful would be done before 10.12.2008 as directed by the Hon'ble High Court. As per the Meeting the Government of Delhi has treated the liability of the contractors as committed liability and the entire amount of Rs.31.12 crores has been agreed to be released in favour of the MCD. Mr.Waziri, learned standing counsel for the Government of NCT of Delhi submits that as per the Minutes the figure is Rs.31.12 but on calculation it comes to Rs.30.093 crores. Ms.Maninder Acharya, learned standing counsel for the MCD submits that in compliance of the Minutes, the certified list of 5. t/ 6. 7. 8. u works has been submitted by the MCD to the project Director Rural Development and on receipt of the payments from the GNCTD the same shall be released in favour of the petitioners. Mr.Waziri, learned counsel for the GNCTD also submits that on account of the fact that swearing of the Cabinet is scheduled to be held on 17.L2.2008, the payments have not been released as it requires.sanction from the Finance Minister. He also \ \-_- submitB"that payments will be released to the MCD within a ' (_ period of two weeks,, The respondents shall be bound by the statement made in the Court today. Accordingly, the MCD is directed to release the payment in favour of the petitioners within a period of four weeks of receipt of payment from GNCTD. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the interest be awarded on the amount on account , of delay. The question of payment of any interest is kept open and petitioners are at liberty to take such remedy as may be available to them in accordance with law, 10, With above directions petitions stand disposed of. 1I I T 9. u t -c-3[* G.S. S!STAN|, J. December 16, 2OO8 'ssn'