M.C. MEHTA Vs. UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
LAWS(SC)-2016-7-127
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Decided on July 15,2016

M.C. MEHTA Appellant
VERSUS
Union of India And Ors. Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.) Heard.
(2.) By our Order dated 13th May, 2016 we had while disposing of I.A. Nos. 363-364, I.A. No. 425 in I.A. No. 364 in I.A. Nos. 344, 355, 362 in Writ Petition (C) No.13029 of 1985 inter alia directed Haryana State Industrial and Infrastructure Development Corporation Limited (HSIIDC) to appoint a committee of engineers/experts to undertake measurement of the work done by the out-going concessionaire-M/s. K.M.P. Expressways Ltd. of Kundli-Manesar (0.00 km.-83.320 kms.) and Manesar-Palwal (83.320 kms.-135.650 kms.). The report of the measurements so prepared was then directed to be filed before the arbitrators within four weeks from the date of the order passed by us. The outgoing-concessionaire, the lender banks and new concessionaire were at the same time directed to associate themselves with the measurement of the work done, with a further direction that the HSIIDC shall do the needful expeditiously to avoid any delay in the commencement of the work on what is called Manesar-Palwal section of the expressway by ESSEL-the new concessionaire.
(3.) The present application now filed by HSIIDC prays for extension of time for recording of the measurement of the work, aforementioned, and also for modification of our direction regarding deposits to be made in the escrow account. Appearing for the applicant-HSIIDC, Mr. Tushar Mehta, learned Additional Solicitor General, argued that the direction regarding deposit of 80% of the total toll collection in the escrow account in terms of the order, needs to be modified so as to allow at least 50% of the amount to be utilised by HSIIDC instead of 20% as earlier directed by this Court. We see no reason nor any basis for the proposed modification suggested by the applicant. We have, it is evident from a reading of the order passed earlier, clearly stipulated deposit of 80% of the toll collection to be made in the escrow account and the balance 20% to be available to HSIIDC for maintenance etc. The application filed by the applicant does not disclose the reasons why that direction should be modified or vacated. The prayer for modification of the order, to the extent the same directs deposit of 80% of the toll collection in the escrow account is, therefore, rejected.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.