Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(DEL) 21330
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Subramonium Prasad, J
SH DHEERAJ RAIKHY – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS. – Respondent
W.P.(C) 15402/2023
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr. Sonal Anand, Mr. Aayush Sai, Ms. Surbhi Singh
For the Respondents: Mr. Parth Goyal, Mr. Jawahar Raja, Ms. Ridhima Gaur, Mr. Sumit Goel, Ms. Sreeparna Basak, Mr. Jayant Bajaj
The court emphasized the need for timely execution of Recovery Certificates to prevent undue delays in granting relief to the winning party.
Headnote:(A) Code of Civil Procedure - Sections 51(b), 60 to 64 and Order XXI Rules 41 to 57 - Recovery Certificate execution - Petitioner sought enforcement of the Recovery Certificate issued in favor of him, alleging inaction by the SDM - Court emphasized the necessity of timely execution of Recovery Certificates to prevent undue delay in granting relief to the winning party. (Paras 1, 12, 5)
(B) Administrative Procedure - The Court reiterated the established procedure for Recovery Certificate execution, mandating that the SDM must act promptly and follow specific guidelines to ensure compliance and transparency in the recovery process. (Paras 12, 5)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner sought a writ of mandamus against the respondents for the enforcement of a Recovery Certificate, claiming that the SDM was not taking necessary actions to execute it.
Findings of Court:
The SDM was directed to follow the established procedure for executing Recovery Certificates to ensure timely recovery of amounts due.
Issues: The main issue was whether the SDM was taking appropriate steps to enforce the Recovery Certificate issued in favor of the petitioner.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the execution of Recovery Certificates requires special attention to prevent delays that could frustrate the winning party's rights, and outlined the procedural steps to be followed by the SDM.
Result: Writ Petition disposed of with directions.
% 04.04.2024
1. Petitioner has approached this Court with the following prayers:
- “a) Allow the present Writ Petition and issue an appropriate Writ/Order and/or Direction in the nature of mandamus directing the Respondent no.2 and 3 to enforce the Recovery Certificate bearing no.322 issued by Respondent no.6;
- b) Pass any other order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper under the fact and circumstances of the present case.”
2. Notice in the matter was issued and Status Report has been filed.
Relevant portion of the Status Report reads as under:
- “3. Pursuant to Respondent No. 4's failure to comply with the directions in the earlier show cause notice, the Answering Respondent issued a fresh show notice on 5 September 2023.
- A true copy of the show cause notice dated 5 September 2023 issued to Respondent No. 4 is attached herewith as Annexure R3/2.
4. The Answering Respondent then received a reply dated 13 September 2023 against the aforementioned show cause notices; the Respondent No. 4 disputed the merits of the recovery certificate and proposed that disputed property may be attached and sold to satisfy the Recovery Certificate. It was also brought to our notice that the Respondent No. 4 had instituted proceedings before the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court vide CWP 609 of 2023, M/s Raheja Developers Ltd. & Anr v. State of Haryana & Ors, raising certain issues with regard to provision of infrastructure facilities required for competition of the disputed project. The Hon'ble High Court was pleased to direct the Respondents therein not to take any coercive steps against the Petitioner therein till the NDOH; the matter is now listed before the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana HC on 16 April 2024.
A true copy of the Respondent No. 4's reply dated 13 September 2023 to the show cause notices issued by the Answering Respondent is attached herewith as Annexure R3/3.
A true copy of the order dated 12 January 2023 passed by the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in CWP 609/2023 is attached herewith as Annexure R3/4.”
3. It is stated by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner that the concerned SDM is not taking efforts to ensure that the recovery certificate is executed.
Learned Counsel for the Petitioner draws the attention of this Court to an Order dated 24.06.2021, passed by this Court in W.P.(C) 8092/2016, titled as Santosh Kumar Jha v. The Deputy Labour Commissioner (South), wherein this Court while trying to implement an award passed by the Administrative Tribunal has laid down a procedure. Relevant portions of the said Order reads as under:
- “12. On a careful consideration of the suggestions given by the learned amici curiae, the directions issued by this Court on 27th March, 2017 and 13th December, 2019 are hereby modified, and substituted with the following directions. The SDM/Recovery Officer/Appropriate Authority shall follow the following procedure for execution of the Recovery Certificates:-
- I. The execution of Recovery Certificate deserves special attention considering that any delay in execution proceedings would frustrate the winning party from reaping the benefits of the award/order in their favor on account of inordinate delay.
- II. Upon receipt of the Recovery Certificate, the SDM/Recovery Officer/Appropriate Authority shall list the matter in open Court within one week of the receipt of the Recovery Certificate.
- III. On the first date of hearing, the SDM/Recovery Officer/Appropriate Authority shall issue notice to the respondent and direct the respondent to deposit the due amount within thirty days of the receipt of the notice with a further direction that if the amount is not deposited, the respondent shall file an affidavit of his assets on the date of cause of action, date of the award as well as on the date of the swearing of the affidavit in Form 16A of Appendix E of the Code of Civil Procedure within 30 days of the receipt of the notice.
- IV. The SDM/ Recovery Officer/Appropr
