The Supreme Court on Wednesday gave the Delhi government 7 days “to transmit” its share of money for the Delhi-Alwar and Delhi-Panipat Regional Rapid Rail Transit System (RRTS) corridors and to abide by the already agreed upon schedule of payment for the projects. A bench of Justices S K Kaul and Sudhanshu Dhulia did not agree with the Delhi government’s submission that the Centre was yet to approve the project and that the amount would be released once approval happens. The bench noted that other states falling in the project had already transferred their share in 2019 and 2020. The court said this as the Delhi government submitted that it had made budgetary provisions for the project and is waiting for Central approval for these projects to release the funds. Appearing for the Delhi government, Senior Advocate S Muralidhar said, “Even the applicant NCRTC (National Capital Rail Transport Corporation) does not say that the Government of India has approved it. The minute the Government of India approves, we will release these (funds)”. Amicus Curiae Senior Advocate Aparajita Singh, however, said the state had undertaken to pay as per schedule and must stick to it. Singh added that such public projects are implemented using loans and delays will only push up the total project costs. Attorney General R Venkataramani expressed the view that there may not be any problem with the project approval. Giving the state government 7 days, the bench also cautioned it not to bring things to a situation where the court will have to revive its November 21 order. Pulling up the Delhi government for a “breach” of its undertaking to pay its share of funds for the RRTS project, the SC had on November 21 directed it to pay the same within a week failing which it said the state’s advertising funds will be transferred to the project. At the next hearing, the Delhi government told the court that it had given Rs 415 crore by a sanction order dated November 24. The Amicus Curiae, however, pointed out that the sanction order itself stated that it was in “partial compliance” with the SC order. The court then said, “There can be no question of partial compliance. Complete compliance must take place as per the schedule”.
