Read Time: 07 minutes

Synopsis

The Delhi High Court, recently, dismissed a petition filed by Times Trading Corporation seeking judicial intervention to investigate the alleged corruption in the redevelopment project of the ITPO Complex. The bench of Justice Neena Bansal Krishna held, “There are no details of any kind of alleged illegal corruption which have been brought forth in the contents of the Petition. Rather, it is the personal dispute of the Petitioner, to which he has tried to give the colour of public wrong”. 

The redevelopment contract for renovating Pragati Maidan’s Halls was awarded by the Indian Trade Promotion Organisation (ITPO), represented by its Chairman-cum-Managing Director (Respondent No. 5), to the National Buildings Construction Corporation (NBCC, Respondent No. 6). NBCC subcontracted the project to Shapoorji Pallonji & Co. Pvt. Ltd. (Respondent No. 7), which floated tenders for demolition. Initially, BS Enterprises won the contract for selling foundation materials but defaulted on payments. Consequently, Times Trading Corporation (Petitioner No. 1) assumed the contract on December 18, 2017.  

The petitioners alleged that Shapoorji Pallonji obstructed their work despite receiving an advance payment of ₹4 crore. An RTI response on February 26, 2018, revealed that portions of the demolition site were not handed over by NBCC when the contract commenced. Multiple complaints were lodged with the police, citing fraud and financial losses due to non-compliance by Shapoorji Pallonji.  

On March 28, 2018, Shapoorji Pallonji proposed a settlement agreement, offering compensation of ₹6.02 crore. The petitioners withdrew their complaints based on this agreement but later alleged breaches, including the non-handover of a BSES substation. The petitioners accused Shapoorji Pallonji of misrepresentation and forgery, claiming the unauthorized sale of the substation. Despite assurances, payments under the settlement agreement were delayed, prompting further complaints to the OBC Commission. Meetings followed where Shapoorji Pallonji acknowledged liabilities but requested more time for resolution.  

Shapoorji Pallonji denied allegations of misconduct, attributing delays to civil disputes and the petitioners' non-performance. It argued that claims lacked a criminal basis and were subject to arbitration under the contract. Police inquiries concluded no cognizable offense was established, affirming that the issues stemmed from civil disputes rather than criminal wrongdoing.  

The petitioners contended that corruption in public contracts necessitated judicial scrutiny. However, Respondents Nos. 1 and 2 argued that statutory remedies under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. were available, making the writ petition unsustainable. The court emphasized that writ jurisdiction could not replace statutory remedies unless exceptional circumstances existed.  

The petitioner raised grievances over work contracts assigned to Shapoorji Pallonji and reallocated to another agency. Respondent No. 7 clarified that tasks related to building materials, demolition, and removal were distinctly allotted, denying any discrepancies or double allotment. The petitioner also alleged non-compliance with a settlement agreement dated March 28, 2018.  

The court observed that disputes arose from civil contracts and noted that the petitioner failed to pursue statutory remedies, such as applying under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. Allegations of corruption were unsupported by specific details, and the matter primarily involved personal disputes rather than public interest concerns.  

For Petitioner: Senior Advocate Harshvir Pratap Sharma with Advocates Atul Krishnan, Amit Kumar, Stuti Jain and Akshu Jain
For Respondent: Advocates G.G.Kashyap, Ronvijay, Nishant Pandit, Soumya Singh, Madhav Khurrana, Jaiyesh Bakshi, Ravi Tyagi, Mayank Mishra, Chirag Sharma, Manmilan Sidhu, Ria Chandra, Bhumika Bhatnagar, Sudiksha Saini, Saksha Jha and Shikhar Misra
Case Title: Times Trading Corporation v Union Of India (2024:DHC:9257)