Panchkula court upholds ₹25L recovery order against MC

District judge Sanjay Sandhir, in his judgment pronounced on September 8, upheld the November 21, 2024, order of the civil judge (senior division), which had ordered the settlement of M/s Avdesh Printers’ payment

A local court has dismissed an appeal filed by the Panchkula municipal corporation (MC) and its officials against a decree directing them to pay ₹25 lakh to a printing company for publicity work carried out under the Swachh Bharat Mission in 2017.

The appeal was filed by the MC through its officials, including an executive officer and a junior engineer. (HT File)

District judge Sanjay Sandhir, in his judgment pronounced on September 8, upheld the November 21, 2024, order of the civil judge (senior division), which had ordered the settlement of M/s Avdesh Printers’ payment. The appeal was filed by the MC through its officials, including an executive officer and a junior engineer.

The dispute arose over the installation of flex boards, banners and other publicity material at various locations in Panchkula as part of an open defecation free (ODF) awareness campaign. Avdesh Printers claimed it had submitted quotations and, following urgent verbal instructions, carried out the work between September 25 and 29, 2017. It later raised bills totalling ₹24 lakh, but the payment was not released.

The MC contested the claim, arguing that no authorised work order had been issued to the firm and that the work had instead been allotted to M/s Rainbow Signs.

The court found Avdesh Printers’ version more probable on the basis of the evidence. The district judge noted that junior engineer Sushil Kumar had admitted to receiving and verifying several bills submitted by the printer and had identified his signatures on them. The court also considered email and WhatsApp communications relating to approval of designs.

The court further noted that Priyanka Chauhan, who was stated to have been associated with the Swachh Bharat Mission and had allegedly communicated with the printer regarding the designs, was not examined as a witness by the defendants. It drew an adverse inference from her non-examination.

The court held that the fact that another firm, Rainbow Signs, had received a work order and payment did not by itself disprove Avdesh Printers’ claim.

The appeal was accordingly dismissed with costs, and the trial court’s decree was upheld.