*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of decision: 18th July, 2011.
+ W.P.(C) No.2493/2010
% M/S WESTERN INDIA GENUINE GHEE
CO. (P) LTD. ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. S.K. Chaturvedi, Adv.
Versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Jatan Singh with Mr. Ashish
Kumar Srivastava & Mr. Kunal
Kahol, Advocates for UOI.
CORAM :-
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW
1. Whether reporters of Local papers may Not necessary
be allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the reporter or not? Not necessary
3. Whether the judgment should be reported Not necessary
in the Digest?
RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J.
1. The petitioner claiming to be a Small Scale Industry, claims to be exempted from payment of security deposit under a contract for supply of goods. This writ petition has been filed claiming reliefs of amendment of W.P.(C) No.2493/2010 Page 1 of 4 the tender enquiry, payment of amounts withheld by the respondents out of the payments due to the petitioner for the reason of non-payment of security deposit, initiating disciplinary proceedings against concerned officials of the respondents etc. The writ petition was vide order dated 16 th April, 2010 disposed of on the very first date with liberty to the petitioner to make a representation to the respondents and with direction to the respondents to take a decision on the said representation and with liberty to the petitioner to seek appropriate remedies if remains aggrieved. The petitioner thereafter applied for revival of the petition on the ground that no decision was taken on its representation. The writ petition was permitted to be so revived on 12th July, 2010 and notice thereof issued and pleadings have been completed.
2. The contract for supply of goods has since been executed with the goods thereunder having been delivered. Now, the only question is of release of `36,745/- admittedly payable by the respondents to the petitioner and which have been withheld for the reason of the petitioner having not made security deposit for the said amount under the contract. It has been enquired from the counsel for the respondents whether the respondents have W.P.(C) No.2493/2010 Page 2 of 4 any claim against the petitioner under the contract, for withholding the security deposit. The answer is in the negative. The counsel for the respondents however states that the release of the said sum of `36,745/- is held up for the reason of the petitioner having not issued 'No Dues Certificate' demanded from the petitioner.
3. The counsel for the respondents has however otherwise challenged the very maintainability of the writ petition. It is contended that the petitioner had filed two other writ petitions also viz. W.P.(C) Nos.11136-37/2009 and W.P.(C) No.9666/2009 with respect to other contracts contemporaneously placed on the petitioner and which both writ petitions were held to be not maintainable for the reason of the dispute being purely contractual and for the reason of existence of arbitration clause in the agreements. He contends that the position with respect to this writ petition is the same and the same is liable to be dismissed.
4. After considerable arguments, it has been agreed that the statement of the petitioner through counsel to the effect that the petitioner has no claims against the respondents against the contract subject matter of this writ W.P.(C) No.2493/2010 Page 3 of 4 petition be recorded and the same be treated by the respondents as a 'No Dues Certificate' and the respondents within three weeks, release the sum of `36,745/- to the petitioner. The counsel for the petitioner has stated that the petitioner has no claims against the respondents with respect to the contract/tender subject matter of this writ petition and this order may be treated as a 'No Dues Certificate' demanded by the respondents as a condition for release of the sum of `36,745/-.
5. The writ petition is therefore disposed of directing the respondents to within three weeks hereof pay a sum of `36,745/- to the petitioner; if the amount is not paid within the said time, the same shall incur interest at the rate of 10% per annum from the expiry of three weeks and till the date of payment, besides other remedies of petitioner.
No order as to costs.
RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW (JUDGE) JULY 18, 2011 bs (corrected and released on 28th July, 2011) W.P.(C) No.2493/2010 Page 4 of 4