ORDER : 1. Mr. Pawanshree Agrawal, learned Amicus Curiae has submitted in a status report that upon adopting the cut off date as 30 November 2018, a list of 1338 home buyers was prepared to whom pro rata distribution of Rs 87 crores is in progress. 875 home buyers have deposited advance receipts. The Amicus Curiae states that 503 home buyers have been paid pro rata while the process for the payment to 349 home buyers is in process. 2. The Registry shall ensure that pro rata distribution of the principal sum is made to the home buyers in terms of the list(s) furnished by the learned Amicus Curiae. The above disbursement is to be made to the balance 349 home buyers. Those home buyers who have either not submitted advance receipts or required documents, as the case may be, shall do so within ten days from today so as to facilitate the Amicus Curiae forwarding their details to the Registry. 3. The Registry shall complete the process of pro rata distribution within two weeks of the receipt of the list from the Amicus Curiae. We clarify that while making a deduction under Order IX Rule 9 of the Supreme Court Rules, the Registry shall ensure that the ceiling of Rs 15,000 is not exceeded in the aggregate per home buyer, regardless of the tranches in which distribution is made to each person. 4. The Amicus Curiae is also requested to prepare separately a schedule for the disbursement of principal sums to the home buyers who have already Obtained an order of refund taking an extended cut off date as 30 June 2019. 5. Out of the component of 10 per cent which has been earmarked for payment to the fixed depositors, we direct that the initial disbursement of the pro rata principal shall first take place to fixed deposit holders of the age group of 60 years and above. From amongst that group, disbursal shall take place on the basis of the duration of the investment in fixed deposit. The Amicus Curiae shall follow the above principle for the purpose of disbursement to the fixed depositors and shall submit an upto date list within two weeks from today to the Registry upon which disbursement can take place. 6. The Amicus Curiae has obtained data pertaining to employees on the web portal as on 2 July 2019. The Amicus Curiae shall follow the above principle for the purpose of disbursement to the fixed depositors and shall submit an upto date list within two weeks from today to the Registry upon which disbursement can take place. 6. The Amicus Curiae has obtained data pertaining to employees on the web portal as on 2 July 2019. He has submitted that he will share this data with counsel for Unitech so that verification of the claims which have been received is done. The learned Amicus Curiae is requested to carry out the process of verifying the amount of the principal claims and claims on account of TDS and dividend fund dues within four weeks. Unitech shall ensure all cooperation. Counsel appearing on behalf of the employees is also at liberty to share her computation with the Amicus Curiae to facilitate verification. 7. Mr. Sameer Paranjape representing Grant Thornton has placed on record a report reflecting the status of the forensic audit. Mr. Paranjape suggested that this Court may lay down a cut off date for the submission of all the data and information by Unitech Ltd., after the expiry of which a period of three weeks may be granted to the forensic auditors to complete the audit and submit an interim report to this Court. 8. We accordingly direct that Unitech Ltd. shall submit all the required information that remains to the forensic auditors on or before 19 July 2019. All the concerned banks are directed to ensure that the remaining bank statements are made available to Grant Thornton within the aforesaid period failing which the Court shall be compelled to take coercive steps for compliance against the defaulting banks. Grant Thornton shall submit its interim report by 9 August 2019. 9. Mr. Pinaki Mishra, learned Senior Counsel for Unitech seeks permission of the Court to deposit Rs 51.95 crores in the Registry of the Court. Permission is granted. 10. The Registry shall invest an amount of Rs 5 crores deposited on 10 May 2019 and the amount of Rs 51.95 crores in a fixed deposit of any nationalized bank which offers better terms as regards the rate of interest for a period of 91 days. 11. FDR A/c. No. 1303-G which is maturing on 7 August 2019 shall also be re-invested with any nationalized bank which pays a higher rate of interest for a further period of 91 days. 11. FDR A/c. No. 1303-G which is maturing on 7 August 2019 shall also be re-invested with any nationalized bank which pays a higher rate of interest for a further period of 91 days. I.A. NO. 94783/2019 12. In pursuance of the previous order passed by this Court on 9 May 2019, Mr. K.K. Venugopal, learned Attorney General for India has assisted the Court. Learned Attorney General submitted that the proposal for a third party agency to take up the work of construction can be dealt with subject to and upon the disposal of the Crl. Misc. Petition instituted by Unitech. We accordingly proceed to do so. 13. The reliefs which have been sought in the Crl. Miscellaneous Petition are in the following terms: “A. Pass an order taking on record the time-bound plan for completion of pending projects submitted by the Applicant/Petitioner No. 3; and B. Direct the Hon’ble Justice (Retd.) Dhingra Committee to submit a viability report of the plan based on discussions with the Petitioners No. 1 & 2; and C. Direct that the office facilities provided to Petitioners No. 1 & 2 to hold discussions with the Hon’ble Justice (Retd.) Dhingra Committee be restored; and D. Direct the Hon’ble Justice (Retd.) Dhingra Committee to implement the said plan with modification if any and subject to such terms and conditions as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and necessary;” 14. Unitech has urged before this Court that the work of completing the construction should continue to be carried out by it and has purported to submit a time bound plan for the completion of pending projects. Acceptance of the prayer of Unitech would result in the exclusion of the association of any third party at the behest of the Union government. We have heard Dr. A.M. Singhvi, learned Senior Counsel and Mr. Pinaki Mishra, learned Senior Counsel in support of the application. 15. Unitech has submitted before the Court that of the 29,434 units which have been sold, 12,466 units remain undelivered. Construction of 60 per cent of the pending projects is stated to be ongoing and at diverse stages of completion. Unitech has proposed that the 12,466 undelivered units will be completed over the next three years, by July 2022. 15. Unitech has submitted before the Court that of the 29,434 units which have been sold, 12,466 units remain undelivered. Construction of 60 per cent of the pending projects is stated to be ongoing and at diverse stages of completion. Unitech has proposed that the 12,466 undelivered units will be completed over the next three years, by July 2022. It has been urged that an amount of Rs 481 crores has been deposited in the Registry of this Court in pursuance of the directions which have been issued from time to time. On this basis, it has been urged that there is no reason to deviate from the existing position under which the Court appointed Committee is overseeing the work of construction. Besides this, it has been submitted that the process of monetizing the assets of Unitech is being carried out under the directions of the Justice (Retd.) Dhingra Committee. Of the 74 pending projects, it has been submitted that 22 have been completed while 23 are being funded by two Asset Reconstruction Companies. In sum and substance, it has been alleged that the interposition of a third party agency is liable to delay the handing over of flats to home buyers hence the existing modalities under which the monetization of assets is being carried out and funds are being progressively made over to Unitech for completing the construction under the auspices of the Court appointed Committee may continue. 16. We are unable to accede to the submission which has been urged on behalf of the Unitech. The work of monetizing the assets of the company is being carried out, it is necessary to note, under judicial directions. It was as a result of the intervention of this Court and the appointment of the Committee that some progress in regard to realising the value of the assets of Unitech has resulted. 17. The work of the Justice Dhingra Committee in monetising the assets is not interdicted . That undoubtedly will continue to be carried out under the overall supervision of the Committee appointed by this Court, subject to further directions or modalities as may be fixed by this Court. 18. The central issue before us is whether Unitech should continue to be entrusted with the work of construction. Over the previous two years, this Court has been monitoring the progress of construction. 18. The central issue before us is whether Unitech should continue to be entrusted with the work of construction. Over the previous two years, this Court has been monitoring the progress of construction. By its very nature, it is impossible for the Court to take upon itself the task of overseeing the process. The difficulty which is faced by thousands of home buyers has arisen because of the inability of Unitech to abide by its contractual obligations and to deliver flats to the home buyers within the time schedule which was agreed. As a result of the continuing default by Unitech, thousands of home buyers who have to pay EMIs for home loans are left in a situation where they are at the same time required to pay rent for housing accommodation without any likelihood of the accommodation purchased by them been completed. This state of affairs cannot be continued indefinitely. It was with this view that the Court passed the previous order after observing prima facie that a stage has been reached where it is necessary to seek the intervention of the Union government so as to ensure that the interests of the home buyers are duly protected. 19. For the above reasons, we are clearly of the view that the existing developer cannot be entrusted with the task of completing the projects particularly in the absence of any safeguard that would ensure that the commitments which are sought to be offered before this Court presently will be fulfilled. Their past track record indicates otherwise. We accordingly reject the Criminal Miscellaneous Petition. 20. Having done so, we have heard the learned Attorney General for India on the modalities which the Union government proposes to adopt. The Attorney General has in his oral submissions placed before the Court a tentative course of action in which the matter can proceed further by the appointment of a third party agency to take over the construction. The Attorney General who has held discussions at a senior level in the Union government has submitted before the Court that a period of 10 days would be required to place a formal proposal on the record. Acceding to the suggestion which has been made, we direct that the further hearing of these proceedings shall stand adjourned to 23 July 2019. 21. List the matter on 23 July 2019 at 3 p.m. 22. I.A. Nos. Acceding to the suggestion which has been made, we direct that the further hearing of these proceedings shall stand adjourned to 23 July 2019. 21. List the matter on 23 July 2019 at 3 p.m. 22. I.A. Nos. 94991/2019, I.A. Nos. 91808/2019, I.A. No. 31375/2019 and I.A. No. 31376/2019 be listed on the next date of hearing.