* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 2696/2023 Date of Decision: 27.03.2023 IN THE MATTER OF:

SUNIL MALHOTRA ..... Petitioner Through: Ms. Anusuya Salwan, Advocate versus MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI ..... Respondent Through: Mr. Siddhant Nath, Standing Counsel.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR OHRI

JUDGMENT

MANOJ KUMAR OHRI, J. (O RAL)

1. By way of present petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has sought release of payments due and payable to him under the bills prepared and approved by respective Assistant Engineer(s) and counter-signed by Junior Engineer(s) of the erstwhile Corporations against the work executed by him. Alongwith the petition the petitioner has annexed the details of the relevant bills.

2. Ms. Anusuya Salwan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the facts of the present case are squarely covered by the decision rendered by this Court in W.P.(C) No. 116/2021 titled as Garg Construction Company v. North Delhi Municipal Corporation.

W.P.(C) 2696/2023 Page 1 of 4 Digitally Signed

3. On 02.03.2023, while noting the submissions on behalf of the petitioner, notice was issued to the respondent. Learned Standing Counsel for the respondent accepted notice and sought some time to obtain instructions. Thereafter, the matter was listed on 20.03.2023 and 23.03.2023 when some more time was sought on behalf of the respondent to obtain instructions.

4. Today, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that even after taking ample opportunities, the respondent has failed to point out as to why the present petitioner is not covered by the decision rendered in Garg Construction (Supra).

5. A perusal of the decision in Garg Construction (Supra) would show that after considering the fact that the bills were duly prepared and approved by the respective Assistant Engineer(s) and counter-signed by Junior Engineer(s), and further in view of the fact that the respondent had come out with a policy decision to release the payments towards the principal amounts to similarly placed persons, this Court had observed as under :-

"9. Although learned counsels on both sides have cited a catena of decisions, the same need not be gone into in view of the decision taken by Corporation to release the payments which are due to the petitioners towards principal amounts."

6. While referring to the decision of Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in North Delhi Municipal Corporation and Anr. v. Sanjeev Kumar reported as 2018 SCC OnLine Del 8053, this Court in Garg Construction (Supra) held as under :-

"10. On a reading of the policy dated 13.10.2022, however, it is evident that the same is in teeth of the decision of this Court in Sanjeev Kumar (Supra), which W.P.(C) 2696/2023 Page 2 of 4 Digitally Signed was passed in facts and circumstances akin to the present case. It is worthwhile to note that in the captioned case, applicability of queue system to payments due beyond 6/9 months, bereft of an upper time limit, was found to be unreasonable. Further, it was opined that reasonable time for making of payments of final bills in respect of work orders with tendered value up to Rs.5 lakhs shall be 6 months and work orders with tendered value exceeding Rs.5 lakhs shall be 9 months from the date when the bill was passed by the Engineer-in-Charge. In the present case, most of the bills date back to the year 2015 and reasonable time for making payment has passed long back. 11. It is apparent that by bringing out the policy dated 13.10.2022 in the present case, the Corporation, has aggravated the agony of the petitioners and other similarly situated persons, as the release of payments has been made dependent on the availability of funds with the Corporation, among other extraneous factors mentioned in the policy. Further, not only the amount allocated for disbursement is miniscule, but also the ratio specified with regard to manner of disbursement bears no rationale. The ratio specified by the