JUDGMENT
D.Y. Chandrachud, J.
1. The suit, out of which the Notice of Motion before the Court arises, has been instituted by eighteen members of the National Sports Club of India (NSCI), a Society registered under the Societies’ Registration Act, 1860. The First Defendant is the Chairman of the NSCI, Mumbai. The Second Defendant was appointed as the Principal Architect for a project involving the development and reconstruction of the Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel Stadium. The Stadium had a velodrome and a central area which could be utilised for athletics. There was a seating capacity of about 40,000 persons. The suit is a derivative action instituted by the Plaintiffs for and on behalf of the Club. The cause of action for the suit is founded on an allegation that there were gross irregularities and illegalities in the award and execution of work for the construction and development of the new Sports Stadium Complex. According to the Plaintiffs; (i) The Second Defendant who was not an Architect and had no architectural qualifications was appointed as the Principal Architect; (ii) The Third Defendant, who is the daughter of the Second Defendant and was a College student at the material time, was to be paid 5% of the project cost; (iii) The initial budget of Rs. 40 crores, escalated to Rs. 125 crores; and (iv) Work which was to be carried out in 18 months has remained incomplete after three years and eight months. The Plaintiffs seek a decree against Defendant Nos. 1 to 3, 5 and 6, in favour of the Club, which is impleaded as Defendant No. 40, in the amount of Rs. 90 crores and a decree against Defendant Nos. 1 to 3 in the amount of Rs. 11.08 crores. Among the reliefs that have been sought is, the supercession of the Executive Committee and the Mumbai Regional Committee of the Club; the appointment of an Administrator; a declaration that the work of redevelopment of the Stadium is illegal; a declaration in regard to the illegality of the appointment of the Second Defendant as Principal Architect and of the Fifth and Sixth Defendants as contractors for redevelopment. Consequential injunctive reliefs have been sought.
2. In Notice of Motion 3652 of 2007, the Plaintiffs seek the appointment of an interim Administrator; the appointment of a Receiver to take charge of the project for the reconstruction of the Stadium; for the conduct of an investigation by a Committee of Experts and injunctive reliefs against Defendants 1 to 3 and 5 to 39 from being concerned with the work of reconstruction and redevelopment. On 1st November 2007, an ad-interim order was passed by a Learned Single Judge, directing that the Motion should be peremptorily taken up for hearing and that no payments shall be made to Defendant Nos. 2, 5 and 6, in the meantime. The ad-interim order has since been extended.
3. The submissions which have been urged before the Court on behalf of the Plaintiffs would require elaboration. The heads under which the submissions fall and the contentions thereunder are summarised hereinafter:
(A) The appointment of the Second Defendant as Principal Architect and his college going daughter, the Third Defendant as consultant:
On 8th April 2001, a meeting was held of the Regional Committee. Under Clause 5 of the Minutes, a Committee of three persons including the Second Defendant was appointed to study and give a plan for the beautification of the Stadium. The Minutes of the Meeting contemplate that once the plan was prepared, it would be brought before the Regional Committee for discussion and upon approval, the cost would be worked out and tenders invited. The minutes would show that no appointment was made at the meeting on 8th April 2001 of the Second Defendant as Architect. Yet, three days later, on 11th April 2001, a letter was issued appointing the Second Defendant as the Principal Architect and he was informed that this was in pursuance of a decision taken by the Executive Committee on 8th April 2001. The fee of the Second Defendant was fixed at 8% of the total project cost which was to be distributed between him and his college going daughter, the Third Defendant, who was appointed as a consultant. No bids were invited for the appointment of the Architect or for design and no parameters were specified. The appointment of the Third Defendant was, according to the Plaintiffs, unauthorised. The Second Defendant, it has been submitted, is not a qualified Architect, but is a licenced Surveyor and his previous experience was confined largely to work involving interiors. The Second Defendant, it is submitted, has no experience on designing a Stadium project of the dimensions involved in the present case. In April 2007, in response to the protests lodged by the members, the services of the Second Defendant and the Third Defendant were terminated by the First Defendant on the ground that he had concealed from the Committee that he was not a qualified Architect and a demand was raised for the refund of Rs. 11 crores paid to him.
(B) Sanctions allegedly obtained from the Committee for huge amounts on false representations and additional amounts sanctioned for works already included in previously sanctioned estimates.
The principal submission is that there has been a serious illegality in the payment of work to the tune of Rs. 162 crores and an additional amount of Rs. 25 crores is stated to have been sanctioned on 15th/31st July 2003 on the basis that the increase in built up area was on account of a new proposed basement parking area of an 33,000 sq.mtrs., for 800 Cars. According to the Plaintiffs, this was plainly false because: (i) A basement of 3.60 lakhs sq.ft. was provided from the beginning and its cost was included in the previous sanction of the Executive Committee. This, it is submitted, is also the position taken in an affidavit filed by the First Defendant before the Delhi High Court in September 2006. In 2002, it is alleged, Stadium plans were submitted for sanction to the Municipal Corporation. Plans were sanctioned and an IOD was issued on 1st April 2003 incorporating a full basement of 3.60 lakh sq.ft. The budgetary estimate included the cost of excavation and pile foundations.
(C) A separate sanction was subsequently granted of an were already included in the original estimate of Rs. 45 crores.
(D) Appointment of the Fifth and Sixth Defendants on 22nd December 2003: Civil works were awarded to the Fifth and Sixth Defendants at Rs. 67.17 crores after tenders were invited. The bill of quantities was not disclosed despite requests by the Plaintiffs. The Fifth and Sixth Defendants, it is alleged, were wrongly shown as a Joint Venture though separate tenders were submitted by both. Two bidders were allegedly not pre-qualified for reasons unknown. After the award of the tender, the scope of the work is alleged to have been increased disproportionately. The tendered cost of Rs. 36.20 crores in respect of the work of demolition, pile foundation, earth work, plain and reinforced work, reinforcement of steel, masonry work and waterproofing increased to Rs. 45.85 crores at a deviation of 26.64%. An additional 75,000 sq.ft. of FSI came to be sanctioned in the amount of Rs. 25 crores and the rate of Rs. 3330/- per sq.ft. is exorbitant and arbitrary.
(E) Separate tenders were awarded to the Fifth Defendant for Air Conditioners and Elevators as additional items. In so far as Air Conditioners are concerned, eight bids were received out of which three tenderers, namely Blue Star, Voltas and the Fifth and Sixth Defendants were short listed. The tender was allotted to the Fifth and Sixth Defendants with the condition that for the core AC system, the Sub Contract should be awarded either to Blue Star or Voltas. Similarly, for elevators, there were eight bids of which three were short listed, including the Fifth and Sixth Defendants to whom work was allotted on the condition that the Sub Contract should be awarded either to Mitsubishi or Otis Elevators;
(F) A substantial deviation has taken place in the scope of work without inviting tenders:
(i) Instead of zinc alume roofing as originally envisaged, Kalzip roofing has been put in place with a resultant increase in cost of Rs. 12.5 crores; (ii) The original tendered item for construction of a structural wall facade was altered to a glazed glass wall at an increase of Rs. 12.63 crores. The contract for an HT/LT Panel, DG sets and transformers was awarded to the Fifth and Sixth Defendants without tenders.
4. In sum and substance, the gravamen of the charge is that a project of this magnitude was awarded without a project report and there was no independent assessment at all of the rates or the value of the work done. The Minutes of the Meeting of the Executive Committee and of the Regional Committee would show that huge amounts were sanctioned merely on the ipse dixit of the First Defendant. The Plaintiffs urged before the Court that there is a need for an independent person to make an assessment of the bills and rates and the Plaintiffs who had a vital interest, have been denied access to information at every stage.
5. On behalf of Defendant Nos. 1, 7 to 10, 12 to 23, 25 to 27 and 30 to 40, it has been urged that:
(i) The suit and the interim application are vitiated by gross delay and laches. The Stadium project was conceived in 2001; tenders for the civil component of the work were invited on 16th October 2003 and work commenced in 2004 in full public view. Work had proceeded for three and a half years prior to the institution of the suit and the challenge to the project is grossly belated; (ii) The suit was instituted for collateral purpose on the eve of elections to be held to fill up vacancies to the Central Council of the Club arising out of retirements in rotation. Six of the Plaintiffs were candidates in the election and the object of the suit was to gain an electoral advantage. In so far as the appointment of the Second Defendant is concerned, it has been urged that he was appointed as a consultant to act on behalf of the Club, for the design, supervision and statutory approval of the project for a consideration of 8% of the project cost (reduced from the original 10%). The Second Defendant, it has been submitted, was a person of confidence who was appointed in view of the Club’s own lack of technical expertise. Previously the Second Defendant had been engaged for various projects since 1991 and he was associated with the Fourth Defendant, against whom no allegations were made, for the detailed design of the project. The Fourth Defendant’s fee was 2.5% which was paid by the Second Defendant out of the consideration received by him. The Second Defendant also paid various consultants from time to time. However, in 2007 when concerns were raised by the members that the Second Defendant was not a qualified Architect, his services were terminated with effect from 7th April 2007, pursuant to the meeting of the Regional and Executive Committees.
6. The Second Defendant has submitted that he is fully qualified to discharge his responsibilities in relation to the project and that he is a qualified Engineer with a Graduate Degree from IIT, Delhi. The Second Defendant has urged that he is duly entitled to submit the plans for approval to the Municipal Corporation.
7. In so far as the appointment of the Fifth and Sixth Defendants is concerned, it has been submitted that the Club had an open and public bidding process for the selection of a Contractor to execute the civil work for the project. The Fifth and Sixth Defendants constituted a Joint Venture and had an impressive track record in successfully executing major construction works including sports stadia. Among the qualified bidders, the Fifth and Sixth Defendants submitted the lowest bid of Rs. 67.17 crores. The tender for civil work did not include other major components such as air conditioning and elevators. These components were also awarded pursuant to a tender process for which the Joint Venture of the Fifth and Sixth Defendants was also the lowest bidder. The rates for execution of the work were thus set by an open public tender. All payments made to the Fifth and Sixth Defendants have been on the basis of bills certified by the Fourth Defendant against whom no allegations have been made by the Plaintiffs. The aggregate expenditure of Rs. 175 crores is supported by resolutions of the Executive and Regional Committees. The affidavit filed in reply describes the scope and magnitude of the project and the facilities that would be extended when the project is complete. The assertion of the Plaintiffs that a project of this nature could be completed for a cost of Rs. 40 crores is unrealistic and comparable sports stadia elsewhere in the world cost several times in excess of what will be incurred for the present project.
8. In so far as the issues relating to Kalzip roofing and the glazed facade are concerned, it has been urged that the earlier roofing solution of zinc alume was replaced by Kalzip roofing in view of its superior properties. Since the roofing of the civil structure was within the scope of the contract awarded to the Joint Venture of the Fifth and Sixth Defendants, no question arose of inviting public bids for this component. In fixing the rates at which the work would be carried out by the Fifth and Sixth Defendants, the rates which had been offered by the Joint Venture for the project of the New International Airport where they had been successful bidders in a public tender involving major entities in the construction industry, was utilized as a base. During the course of negotiations, the Joint Venture agreed to discount this rate by 9% for the Stadium project. In so far as the glazed facade is concerned, this was a change in specification made in the course of the execution of the project due to its superior aesthetic and structural properties. This facade was also a feature of the International Airport Project for which the Fifth and Sixth Defendants were successful bidders. While initially, the Joint Venture offered rates of 20% in excess of the Airport bid on the ground that that bid was submitted two years earlier and there was a cost escalation since then, the Joint Venture was eventually persuaded to offer the same rate for the Stadium project. Moreover, it has been urged that the Fourth Defendant was actively involved in negotiating the rates for both the Kalzip roofing and glazed facade.
9. The Second Defendant has, in his submission, urged that the allegation that he is not a qualified Architect is incorrect since he is a Civil Engineering Graduate from IIT, Delhi and has been acting as a Licenced Surveyor since 1984. The Second Defendant contends that he is registered with the Municipal Corporation and in terms of Regulation 5(4) of the Development Control Regulations for Greater Mumbai, 1991, he has fulfilled the requirement of qualifications and competence. The Municipal Corporation has by a letter dated 3rd April 2007, confirmed that the Second Defendant is a Licenced Surveyor and it has been urged that he has adequate and diversified experience in that capacity. Initially, the Club had envisaged a Water Park and that conception subsequently evolved into a Stadium of international standards. The project cost increased from time to time because of the incorporation of various additional features. The Second and Fourth Defendants worked together in the submission of the plans, preparation of tenders and other related areas right from the inception. After three contractors were short listed for civil work, the proposal was submitted before the Regional Committee for final approval and for determining the contract value. Payment terms were determined by the Regional Committee and extra work has also been allotted by the Regional Committee. The Second Defendant, it is submitted, has no role to play in respect of the amounts agreed to be paid by the Club to the Contractors. The remuneration payable to the Second Defendant was reduced from 10% to 8% of the project cost. An amount of Rs. 11 crores was disbursed to the Second Defendant out of which, an amount of Rs. 6 crores has been paid to the Fourth Defendant and other Consultants. An amount of Rs. 1 crore has been retained by the Club as retention money and Rs. 50 lakhs is still to be paid to the Second Defendant. The basement work was never contemplated in any of the earlier plans. The original area of the Stadium was envisaged at 1.10 lakh sq.ft. in May 2001 which has been increased to 6.35 lakhs sq.ft.
10. The merits of the rival submissions that have been urged on behalf of the contesting parties now fall for determination. Sometime towards the end of 2000, the Club considered the possibility of developing a Water Park at the location of the existing Stadium which, over a period of time, had fallen into disuse. The Second Defendant mooted the possibility of redeveloping and reconstructing the existing Stadium into a facility compatible with international standards. The First Defendant has stated that this appeared to be a promising way to ensure an optimal utilization of the Club’s assets and it was in that context that the Second Defendant came to be engaged as Principal Architect by a letter dated 11th April 2001. Sometime in March 2007, some of the members of the Club raised concerns about the qualifications of the Second Defendant. At a meeting of the Regional Committee held on 9th March 2007, it was resolved that no further payments should be made to the Second Defendant. At a meeting of the Executive Committee on 28th March 2007, it was resolved that the services of the Second Defendant be discontinued and a refund of the amounts paid to him be sought. The services of the Second Defendant were thereupon terminated by a letter dated 7th April 2007. The Second Defendant had in several letters challenged the correctness of the allegations made against him. The First Defendant has stated that these letters have been handed over to Shri Justice S.K. Mahajan, former Judge of the Delhi High Court who has been requested by the Club to enquire into the execution of the project to allay the concerns regarding alleged irregularities.
11. The documentary material on the record before the Court, at the present stage, would prima facie demonstrate that on 8th April 2001, a meeting was held of the Regional Committee. The Minutes of the Meeting, in so far as is material to the present case, are to the following effect:
We have appointed a Committee of 3 persons i.e. Mr. Raj Peshori, Club’s Architect, Mr. Shashi Prabhu (who had constructed Wankhede Stadium) and Mr. Jagesh Savjane of While Water Leisure Ltd. to study and give plan for beautification of the Stadium. Once we have the Plan, we will bring it to the Regional Committee for discussion. Once it is approved by the Committee then we will work out cost and call for tender, which was unanimously endorsed by the Committee.
These Minutes, therefore, prima facie, established that a Committee of three persons including the Second Defendant was set up to furnish a plan for the beautification of the Stadium. It was after the plan would be submitted, that approval was to be sought of the Regional Committee. Hence, as on 8th April 2001, no appointment was envisaged of the Second Defendant as Principal Architect for the development of the Stadium. In fact, the Minutes of 8th April 2001 speak only of the beautification of the Stadium. Yet, barely three days thereafter, a letter was addressed by the Joint Honorary Secretary of the Club to the Second Defendant stating that “as per decision taken in the Regional Committee meeting held on 8th April 2001 wherein it was decided that you should be appointed as the Principal Architect for the development of the Vallabhbhai Patel Stadium”, the Second Defendant was being appointed as Principal Architect. The Second Defendant was permitted to prepare drawings, layouts and models for approval and to negotiate any Memorandum of Understanding with Consultants of his choice. The manner in which the Second Defendant came to be appointed as a Principal Architect leaves much to be desired. Evidently, the appointment of the Second Defendant was on the basis of an alleged resolution dated 8th April 2001 of the Regional Committee. That resolution did not authorise his appointment as Principal Architect. The Third Defendant who is the daughter of the Second Defendant came to be appointed for “project coordination and planning” in connection with the work of a Ladies Health Club in October 2001. Admittedly, even according to the reply filed by the First Defendant, the Third Defendant has a B.Com Degree of 2001 and has a proprietary concern dealing with interior designing. The Third Defendant is alleged to have rendered services in association with the Second and Fourth Defendants. In May 2003, the arrangement was restructured whereby the Club entered into an arrangement under which the Second Defendant was to supervise the work of the firm and the Club was no longer to make payment directly to the firm. The payments made earlier to the Third Defendant were adjusted towards fees payable to the Second Defendant under the modified agreement. The club has proceeded to appoint the Second Defendant and his daughter, the Third Defendant without any transparency in the process of decision making. Were that to be done, due and proper attention would have been devoted to the nature of the qualifications, work and previous experience of the Second Defendant and the justification for the appointment of his daughter for implementing a project involving such a huge outlay to the Club. Prima facie, the Second Defendant had no prior experience of handling a project of this magnitude. Yet, his appointment as a Principal Architect was hastily put through with little or no regard to the consequences. Appointment of a person of confidence is one thing while patronage is quite another. An amount of Rs. 11 crores has been paid to the Second Defendant and even if, as the Second Defendant asserts, the fees payable to the Fourth Defendant have been paid out of that amount, there appears to be little justification for the manner in which the Club had proceeded. The office bearers of the Club held a fiduciary obligation when they dealt with funds of the Club particularly when a project of a magnitude of Rs. 175 crores was being executed. A degree of fairness and transparency should have been observed in such dealings, which was not the case in the appointment of the Second and Third Defendants. That the Club itself has now chosen to terminate the appointment of the Second Defendant upon the concerns raised by the members and appointed a former Judge of the Delhi High Court to enquire into the allegation of irregularity is a telling comment on the nature of the process which has been followed in appointing the Second Defendant. Having terminated the appointment on the one hand, the Club has during the course of the submissions of its Counsel sought to justify the engagement of the Second Defendant. This ambivalence reflects on the bona fides of the Defendants who made the decision in the first place.
12. Allegations have been levelled in regard to the appointment of the Fifth and Sixth Defendants as Contractors. A public tender was floated by the Club at which the bid submitted by the Fifth and Sixth Defendants was found to be the lowest. In the reply before the Court by the First Defendant, it has been stated that the Fifth and Sixth Defendants had been associated in the past with large projects including the Indoor Stadium at Surat, the renovation of the Chhatrapati Shivaji Airport at Mumbai, the Container Freight Station at Dronagiri, a mass housing project of the Delhi Development Authority, the Millennium Business Park at Navi Mumbai, the Headquarters of NABARD at Bandra-Kurla Complex and the Kala Academy of the Ravindra Natya Mandir, Prabhadevi, Mumbai. There is no material before the Court to indicate that the appointment of the Fifth and Sixth Defendants was not fair or that it was based upon extraneous considerations. In the reply filed by the First Defendant, it has been clarified that in respect of the subsidiary contracts of installation of Air Conditioners and Elevators, the Joint Venture of the Fifth and Sixth Defendants was found to be qualified and to be the lowest bidders. The assurance by the joint Venture to associate with reputed manufacturers, namely, Blue Star for Air Conditioners and Mitsubishi for Elevators adequately met the norms of quality and maintenance. At this stage, that explanation cannot be brushed aside.
13. The Court is indeed cognizant of the fact that the project in question involved the development and construction of a Stadium and ancillary facilities to meet, what are described as international standards. The object of the project is the creation of a world class sports facility. The Indoor Stadium comprised of a pillarless structure with a diameter of 90 meters, a central arena with a diameter of 60 meters, an average height of 18 meters, fully air conditioned and with a provision for multiple lighting and sound configurations. The Stadium as proposed, and now almost stated to be complete, houses a basement area of 3,60,000 sq.ft. for parking, a Sports Complex annexe and a Superdome. The Sports Complex comprehends Squash Courts, Badminton Courts, Table Tennis Halls, and facilities for Billiards, Basketball and Volleyball and a Sports bar/Library. The Superdome is to comprise of a Multi-purpose Indoor Stadium with a diameter of 90 meters, a Wellness Centre, Seminar Halls and Lounges. A sum of Rs. 162.14 crores, out of a sanctioned outlay of Rs. 175 crores has been expended in the construction of the Stadium. Having regard to the nature of the facility proposed, the expenditure already incurred and the substantial nature of the work done, the work of construction and development should not be interdicted. It has been stated in the affidavit in reply filed by the First Defendant that the entire allocation has been generated out of the funds of the Club. Both from the perspective of the members of the Club for whom a facility of international standards is to be provided and the public interest, it would neither be justifiable nor proper to stall the completion of the work of development.
14. In the affidavit in reply that has been filed on behalf of the First Defendant, it has been stated that preliminary estimate included an Indoor Stadium of approximately 1,10,000 sq.ft. at an approximate cost of Rs. 3,300/- per sq.ft. This estimate is stated to have been tentative, and to have been made in the absence of plans or designs and without freezing specifications of the quality of material. The built up area on the basis of duly sanctioned plans together with ancillary facilities is 6,35,000 sq.ft. for which an amount of Rs. 40 crores was sanctioned. The basic block estimate for civil work comprising of an Indoor Stadium, eight sport halls and basement was raised to Rs. 65 crores for a built up area of 4,75,000 sq.ft. The Court has been informed that there has been an increase in area on account of a new Basement Parking area of approximately 35,000 sq.mtrs. for 800 cars. A provision of Rs. 40 crores has been made towards (i) Air Conditioners; (ii) Elevators; (iii) Structural glazing and (iv) Kalzip roofing. It has been stated in the reply that Kalzip is a superior solution as compared to zinc alume which was initially contemplated. Kalzip roofing is stated to be more resistant of corrosion and to have a life time which is substantially higher. The initial roofing area proposed in the civil tender was 6,000 sq.mtrs. which was enhanced to 18,000 sq.mtrs. as a result of the increase in FSI. It has been stated that an IOD was issued by the Municipal Corporation for an additional FSI of approximately 90,000 sq.ft. at the end of 2004. No funds had been sanctioned earlier when an IOD was issued in 2003 for the Sports Complex. As a result, an amount of Rs. 25 crores was sanctioned. These facts prima facie indicate that the nature and extent of the project as initially envisaged underwent radical changes in area, dimensions and specifications. The preparation of a proper Project report under the direction of an expert at the inception would have obviated the ad hoeism that has prevailed. This prima facie reflects upon the absence of credentials of the Second Defendant to whom the office bearers willingly entrusted the work of a Principal architect and of planning and coordination.
15. A substantial part of the work of construction and development has been completed. The interests of the Club, its members and the public interest would warrant an efficient and orderly completion of the remaining work of the project. During the course of the hearing, this Court indicated that it would be desirable that a mechanism be evolved for certifying the extent of the work already done and for over seeing the remaining part of the work which needs to be completed expeditiously. Counsel appearing on behalf of the contesting parties tendered during the course of their submissions, draft Minutes that would achieve the object of a satisfactory completion of the project under due supervision. The project, is of a huge magnitude involving an outlay of approximately of Rs. 175 crores. The material before the Court prima facie indicates that the manner in which the Second Defendant was nominated as Principal Architect and his daughter, the Third Defendant, came to be associated with the project raises justifiable grounds for disquiet and concern. Those in charge of the management of the Club must be conscious of the fact that membership to the Committee, is coupled with an obligation to ensure a high level of fairness and transparency in dealing with the assets and funds of the Club. The approach of the Committee in the present case has been ad hoc and, from time to time, the estimates which were originally conceived of have been radically redefined consequent upon a substantial deviation and change in the nature of the work. Confronted with a persistent demand of the members of the Club, the appointment of the Second Defendant as Principal Architect on a consultation fee of 8% of the project cost was terminated on 7th April 2007 and the Club thought it fit to appoint a former Judge of the Delhi High Court to scrutinize the allegation of illegalities and irregularities in the work of construction. In issuing suitable directions in the present Notice of Motion, two principal perspectives which need to be borne in mind are : (i) The need to ensure an expeditious and satisfactory completion of the remaining work on the project; and (ii) The necessity of an independent scrutiny and supervision that would allay the apprehension that there have been serious irregularities and illegalities in the work which has been carried out towards redevelopment of the Sports facility. This should be carried out and monitored by a former Judge whose presence and supervision would impart credibility and independence to the process. The Learned Judge would have to be vested with necessary powers inter alia to obtain the assistance of experts in the field of audit and in the work of civil engineering. Hon’ble Mr. Justice B.P. Singh, former Judge of the Supreme Court has agreed to act as a Special Administrator for the expeditious completion of the project.
16. The following directions would meet the ends of justice and there shall accordingly be an order in these terms:
(1) In the interests of ensuring the expeditious completion of the balance work involved in the Stadium project of the National Sports Club of India, Mumbai and having regard to the rival contentions in the suit and proceedings, Mr. Justice B.P. Singh, former Judge of the Supreme Court of India is appointed as a Special Administrator for the Stadium project;
(2) The Learned Administrator shall in his considered discretion be at liberty to: (i) Cause an inspection to be carried out of the structural work already carried out and to cause measurements to be taken of the same; (ii) Ascertain whether the work has been carried out in accordance with the terms and rates prescribed in the contract with the Fifth and Sixth Defendants and as sanctioned by the Regional/Executive Committees from time to time; (iii) Ascertain whether any work included in the tender/sanction has been paid for as extra work or deviation from the tender/sanction; (iv) Verify the correctness of the quantities on the basis of which running bills have been raised and which may be raised in future by the Fifth and Sixth Defendants in respect of the project; (v) Verify whether the running bills raised by the Fifth and Sixth Defendants for the past and which may be raised in the future are on the basis of contractual rates; and (vi) Certify further payments to be made to the Fifth and Sixth Defendants in respect of pending and future bills;
(3) While carrying out the functions set out in Clause 2 hereinabove, the Learned Special Administrator will be at liberty to appoint a Chartered Engineer and Surveyor and/or a firm of Chartered Accountants at his discretion;
(4) The procedure set out in Clause (2) above shall preferably be completed in respect of pending bills within a period of two months from today. Payments may be released upon the directions of the Learned Special Administrator to the Fifth and Sixth Defendants upon the completion of the work of certification and subject to such directions or safeguards that may be issued by the Administrator;
(5) The Learned Special Administrator is requested to consider taking such steps as may be necessary for ensuring expeditious certification and timely release of payments for bills that may be raised hereafter, subject to the due and satisfactory completion of work;
(6) All parties including the club and its office bearers shall provide such assistance as may be sought by the Learned Administrator for the purpose of carrying out his functions. Defendant No. 40 shall bear the fees payable to the Learned Special Administrator and expenses relating to the work including expenses on travel, lodging and boarding, and secretarial and expert assistance. The Learned Special Administrator will be at liberty to fix his fees for the work involved.
17. The present order shall be without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the parties in the suit.
18. The Notice of Motion shall stand disposed of in terms of the aforesaid order.