The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of full and fair disclosure of all material facts when invoking the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

Hima Kohli, J.

1. The present petition is filed by the Petitioner/Society praying inter alia for quashing of the impugned order dated 19.4.2011 passed by Respondent No. 2/Deputy Director (Horticulture) MCD, cancelling the booking made by the Petitioner/Society in respect of three parks situated in Punjabi Bagh, Delhi, for the purpose of celebrating Janmashtmi Mahotsav from 11.7.2011 to 30.8.2011. It is further prayed that Respondent No. 1/MCD be restrained from issuing permission to any other entity, to use the said parks for the aforesaid period.

2. The brief facts of the case are that as per its policy, Respondent No. 1/MCD grants permission to parties for booking of parks and function sites at various places in Delhi, including the lawns at Punjabi Bagh Stadium for the purposes of holding social, cultural and religious functions/gatherings. As per its Circular dated 7.9.2010, Respondent No. 1/MCD revised the rates and some procedures for booking the parks. One of the conditions imposed for booking of the parks was the requirement of obtaining the consent of the area Councillor or the Mayor of Delhi. It is the case of the Petitioner/Society that on 15.11.2010, it applied to Respondent No. 1/MCD for booking of three lawns at Punjabi Bagh Stadium between 11.7.2011 to 30.8.2011, for holding celebrations on the occasion of Shri Krishna Janmashtmi. Prior to that, on 21.10.2010, the Petitioner/Society applied to the Mayor, Delhi for his recommendation, which was granted to it on 24.10.2010. The booking was processed by Respondent No. 1/MCD after obtaining the approval from the Commissioner, MCD on 19.1.2011. Thereafter, as per the Petitioner/Society, it deposited the booking amount totaling to ` 61,030/-with Respondent No. 1/.MCD. However, the Petitioner/Society claims that in April, 2011, it came to know from some reliable sources that Respondent No. 1/MCD was proposing to cancel the said booking in its favour and proceeding to grant the same to some other party. Apprehending such an action on the part of Respondent No. 1/MCD, the Petitioner/Society issued a legal notice dated 9.4.2011 to Respondent No. 1/MCD seeking to restrain it from allotting the said parks to some other entity. Thereafter, it received the impugned letter dated 19.4.2011 issued by Respondent No. 2, informing that the booking done by it for the three parks for the period from 11.7.2011 to 30.8.2011 was cancelled, and the booking amount of ` 61,030/- was being refunded. Aggrieved by the said order of cancellation, the Petitioner/Society has approached this Court through the present petition, filed on 3.5.2011.

3. On 4.5.2011, notice was issued in the present petition returnable on 30.5.2011. On the same date, an interim order was passed directing that till the next date of hearing, status quo be maintained. On 30.5.2011, an application (C.M. No. 7980/2011) was filed by Shree Krishna Janmashtmi Mahotsav Samiti (Regd.), Punjabi Bagh (subsequently impleaded as Respondent No. 3), praying inter alia for impleadment and directions. In the said application, it was averred that the applicant had been celebrating Janmashtmi in Delhi continuously every year for the past 34 years and for the last 16 years, the three parks situated at Punjabi Bagh were being booked by it. It was further submitted that as per the usual practice, on 21.3.2011, the applicant approached the local Municipal Councillor to obtain his consent for booking the parks in question. On 5.4.2011, the applicant was also recommended by the Mayor of Delhi for the said booking and thereafter on 19.4.2011, booking receipts were issued by Respondent No. 1/MCD in this regard. It was averred that the Petitioner/Society was fully aware of the aforesaid facts on the date when the writ petition was instituted and it deliberately failed to implead the applicant as a co-Respondent, though it was a necessary and proper party in the present proceedings. As a result, an application for impleadment was filed, along