Back
2021 Supreme(Del) 846
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Sanjeev Sachdeva, J.
Shobhit Sharma - Appellant
Versus
Delhi Devlopment Authority & Ors. - Respondents
W.P.(C) 8131/2021 & CM Appl. 25253/2021
Decided On : 22-09-2021
Mr. Jagjit Singh, Mr. Preet Singh and Mr. Vipin Chaudhary, Advocates, for the Petitioner; Mr. Gaurav Dua, Mr. Arpit Chanana and Mr. Manish Gupta, Advocates, for the Respondent No. 1; Ms. Mini Pushkarna, Standing Counsel, North DMC with Ms. Khushboo Nahar and Ms. Latika Malhotra, Advocates, for the Respondent No. 2; Ms. Nidhi Mohan Parashar with Ms. Nandita Rathi, Advocates, for the Respondent No. 3
The court emphasized the importance of complying with the terms of the allotment and refrained from commenting on the validity of the allotment due to the short duration of the contract.
Headnote:
Parking Contract - DDA - W.P(C) 1820/2020 - The court discussed the allotment of parking plots by DDA for construction of a multi level parking and the subsequent temporary allotment to respondent No. 3. The court refrained from commenting on the validity of the allotment to respondent No. 3 due to the short duration of the contract. It was decided that after the contract with respondent No. 3 expires, the plots would be offered to the petitioner at the same rate. The petitioner undertook to comply with the terms of the allotment and to vacate the plots for construction purposes when required. The court accepted the petitioner's undertaking and disposed of the petition accordingly.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought quashing of the parking contract awarded to respondent No. 3 by the DDA, claiming that the additional surface parking created by DDA made the petitioner's bid no longer serviceable.
Finding of the Court:
The court refrained from commenting on the validity of the allotment to respondent No. 3 due to the short duration of the contract and decided that the plots would be offered to the petitioner after the contract with respondent No. 3 expires.
Issues: Validity of the allotment of parking plots by DDA and the temporary allotment to respondent No. 3, and the petitioner's willingness to accept the additional plots at the same rate.
Ratio Decidendi: The court refrained from commenting on the validity of the allotment to respondent No. 3 due to the short duration of the contract and accepted the petitioner's undertaking to comply with the terms of the allotment and to vacate the plots for construction purposes when required.
Final Decision: The petition was disposed of with the court accepting the petitioner's undertaking and refraining from commenting further on the validity of the allotment to respondent No. 3.
JUDGMENT
Sanjeev Sachdeva, J.:-- (Oral)
1. Petitioner seeks quashing of the award of parking contract on license basis by the DDA to respondent No. 3 and further seeks a restraint on the North Delhi Municipal Corporation from terminating or cancelling the contract awarded to the petitioner till the parking contract of respondent No. 3 is cancelled/adjudicated upon by this Court.
2. It is the case of the petitioner that petitioner is a successful bidder for various parking lots vide Letter of Intent dated 21.06.2021. As per the petitioner when petitioner submitted his bids for the parking lot there was no additional parking existing at the spot.
3. It is contended that subsequently DDA has created additional surface parking in six plots which were handed over by the MCD to DDA solely for the purposes of construction of a multi level parking.
4. It is pointed out that by order dated 25.01.2021 in W.P(C) 1820/2020 titled Netaji Subhash Place Traders Welfare Association (Regd) vs. Delhi Development Authority & Ors, six plots were directed to be handed over to DDA solely for the purpose of construction of a multi level parking.
5. Learned counsel points out that in order dated 25.01.2021, the assurance of DDA is noticed that within one month the plots will be auctioned for the purposes of construction of multi level parking and in case DDA decided to construct the parking on its own, then the construction would commence within 3-4 months. It is pursuant to this direction that Municipal Corporation handed over six plots to DDA.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that DDA, instead of constructing the multi level parking, has allotted the plots for surface parking to respondent No.3. He submits that because of the allotment by DDA and creation of additional parking, the bid submitted by the petitioner is no longer serviceable as when the bid was submitted there was no additional parking and now additional surface parking is available on six more plots.
7. It may be noted for the purposes of record that the parking lots which were allotted to the Petitioner were not taken over by the petitioner for the above reasons and they have also been temporarily allotted to Respondent No. 3 for a short period.
8. Learned counsel appearing for the DDA admits that the plots were handed over to DDA for the purposes of constructing multi level parking. He however, submits that because of certain logistic and other administrative delays including the present pandemic, auction for construction of the parking could not take place.
9. He further submits that since there was delay in auctioning the contract for construction of multi level parking, an application has been filed before the said Court for extension of time. He submits that as the plots were lying idle and there was requirement for parking, DDA has been allotted the parking to respondent No.3 for only a short period of six months w.e.f. 05.04.2021 to 04.10.2021.
10. Learned counsel further under instructions submits that the request for proposal for inviting bids for construction of multi level parking is still in the process of finalisation and shall take about one more month and thereafter bids will be invited. He submits that in this view of the matter, the construction of parking is likely to commence after 3-4 months.
11. Learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 3 submits that respondent No. 3 is an allottee of the parking site for a short term period. She however, submits that during the period of allotment there was a lockdown for about 51 days because of which the parking could not be used. Accordingly, respondent No. 3 has already approached the DDA for either refund of the parking fee paid in excess for 51 days or for extension of the term of the agreement by 51 days.
12. Learned counsel appearing for the Municipal Corporation submits that the land was handed over to DDA for a specific purpose and not for the purposes of letting it out as a parking site. She submits that originall
