JUDGMENT :

Rajesh S. Patil, J.

1. This Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, challenging an action of Respondent No.2/Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai (for short “MCGM”) inter-alia imposing recoveries on the Petitioner to the tune of Rs.1,82,31,076.24 ps., vide its letter dated 29 March, 2023, from the sums due and payable to the Petitioner.

2. By an order dated 14 June, 2023 passed in this Writ Petition, notice for final disposal of the Petition at the admission stage was issued and the matter was fixed for final hearing. Accordingly by consent the matter was taken for final disposal at the admission stage.

THE FACTUAL BACKGROUND :

3. The Petitioner claims to be engaged in providing infrastructure and construction services and carries out civil engineering works in all sectors of infrastructure industries such as tunnels, micro tunnels, bridges etc.

4. Pursuant to the bids invited by Respondent No.2/MCGM, for rehabilitation of the sewer lines by GRP liners using trenchless technology in Greater Mumbai, the Petitioner’s bid was accepted and Contract No.SO4-07-T-1 (for short “First Contract”) was executed on 17 April, 2008 between the Petitioner and MCGM.

5. In November 2010, MCGM invited bids for rehabilitation of sewerlines by GRP Liners using trenchless technology. The Petitioner was the successful bidder and was awarded on 11 January, 2011 work order. Accordingly Contract No.SO4-09-T3 (for short “Second Contract”) was entered between the Petitioner and MCGM.

6. On 22 February, 2012 final bill for the First contract was processed and paid to the Petitioner by MCGM. Thereafter on 31 October, 2013, final bill for the second contract was processed and paid by MCGM to the Petitioner.

7. Pursuant to the demand made by MCGM on 20 May, 2015, the Petitioner provided Octroi challans and bills, for octroi paid against GRP Piles to MCGM.

8. Thereafter Controller and Auditor General of India by its report on local bodies in the year ended 31 December, 2016 being Report No.5 of 2017 submitted that due to inclusion of inflated rates of GRP lines in the contract, S.O. has made excess payment of Rs.17.73 crore to the contractor/Petitioner.

9. On 28 June 2019, 62nd Report of Public Accounts Committee was approved, which stated that MCGM has furnished detailed rate analysis considering other incidental charges which were earlier not made available to audit. Hence, as per calculation made by the Department, excess payment was reduced to Rs.1,82,31,076.24 P.

10. Shortly thereafter, MCGM by its letter dated 17 January, 2022 and 5 August, 2022 addressed to the Petitioner demanded that as per the recommendations of the audit reports, the Petitioner was called upon to refund a sum of Rs.1,82,31,076.24 P., failing which action would be initiated against the Petitioner.

11. The Petitioners submitted their objections on the said demand by its letter dated 4 February, 2022, 12 August, 2022 and 15 March, 2023. By a letter dated 24 March, 2023, MCGM addressed a letter to the Petitioner stating that the Additional Municipal Commissioner had approved the recovery of Rs.1,82,31,076.24 P. as the payments were not made by the Petitioners as per the demand, the said amount was recovered from ongoing contract No.SO4-18- 010 (for short “Third Contract”).

12. The Petitioner thereafter preferred Writ Petition (Lodging) No.8499 of 2023 in this Court challenging the demand made by MCGM and sought to stay the proposed recovery.

13. On 28 March, 2023, MCGM issued payment certificate for the Third Contract and a sum of Rs.1,82,31,076.24 P. was earmarked towards other deposit. Thereafter this Court passed an order on 30 March, 2023 in Writ Petition (Lodging) No.8499 of 2023 thereby recording the submission of MCGM that Rs.1,82,31,076.24 P. is deducted from ongoing contract.

14. The Petitioner on 30 March, 2023 received communication from MCGM dated 29 March, 2023, thereby informing that MCGM has already recovered the amount from ongoing contract.

15. O