The main legal point established is that the principles of natural justice, including the right to be heard, must be followed before passing a blacklisting order.

Rajiv Sahai Endlaw, J.

1. This order is in continuation of the order dated 8th July, 2015.

2. The counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner has under the cover of letter dated 8th July, 2015 to the Assistant Commissioner, (RP Cell) of the respondent No.1 South Delhi Municipal Corporation (SDMC) handed over Pay Orders of the total value of Rs.52,16,018/- being the amount for deposit for which statement was made on 27th May, 2015. A copy of the said letter along with the photocopies of the Pay Orders is handed over in the Court and taken on record. A copy of the same has also been handed over to the counsel for the respondent No.1 SDMC.

3. Though the counsel for the respondent No.1 SDMC states that it will have to be verified, whether the correct payment has indeed been made but I feel that there is no reason to doubt the statement of the counsel for the petitioner that the amount vide Pay Orders good for payment has indeed been deposited.

4. The counsels have been heard.

5. At the time of issuance of notice of this petition on 27th May, 2015, the following order was passed:

“The petitioner has filed the present petition, inter alia, impugning a letter dated 28.03.2015, calling upon the petitioner to pay the outstanding amount of Rs.4,53,24,675/- which is stated to be due and payable by the petitioner to the respondent corporation. The respondent corporation has further blacklisted the petitioner. The learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to the decision of a coordinate Bench of this Court in Brite Aricon (Consortium) & Anr. v. Airports Authority of India & Anr., 203 (2013) DLT 408 and Bhim Sain v. Union of India & Anr., AIR 1981 Delhi 260 in support of his contention that an order blacklisting a person for an indefinite period is not permissible in law. The petitioner further contends that the monthly licence fee was enhanced six times w.e.f. 01.11.2014. In the circumstances, the petitioner had voluntarily attempted to surrender the parking sites, however, the same was not accepted on account of alleged dues.

The learned counsel for respondent submits that the petitioner has been negligent in paying its dues from the very beginning. He further states that the representations made by the petitioner were duly considered and responded to, however, the petitioner has still failed to discharge his dues. He states that in addition to the amount which became due after 31.10.2014 a sum of Rs.1,04,32,035/- was outstanding on account of monthly licence fee and other charges for the period prior to the enhancement of the monthly licence fee.

Learned counsel for the petitioner, on instructions, of Mr. Atinder Kaushik, authorized representative of the petitioner company who is present in court today, states that the petitioner would deposit 50% of the outstanding amount within a period of four weeks from today. Issue notice. Learned counsel for the respondent corporation accepts notice. Subject to the petitioner filing an undertaking by way of an affidavit to the aforesaid effect, the order dated 28.03.2015, insofar as it blacklists the petitioner is stayed till the next date of hearing. Renotify on 08.07.2015. Dasti under the signature of Court Master.”

6. It has been enquired from the counsel for the respondent No.1 SDMC, whether before passing the order of blacklisting and cancellation of registration of the petitioner, impugned in this petition, any hearing was given to the petitioner.

7. The counsel for the respondent No.1 SDMC, on instructions, states that no hearing was given.

8. It has been enquired from the counsels, whether not before passing an order of blacklisting, a hearing/opportunity is required to be given.

9. The counsel for the petitioner has drawn attention to the order dated 18th May, 2015 of this Court in W.P.(C) No.4825/2015 titled M/s. L.R. Sharma and Co. Vs. The Commissioner (SDMC) by which the order of blacklisting in that case was set aside and the respondent SDMC was directed to pass a speaking