SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2022 Supreme(Del) 965

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Manoj Kumar Ohri, J.
Sanjay Yadav - Appellant
Versus
North Delhi Municipal Corporation - Respondent
Civil Writ Petition No. 6454 of 2022, Civil Miscellaneous Application No. 19522, 19523 of 2022
Decided On : 29-04-2022

Advocates appeared:
Ajay Verma, Advocate, Amitesh Gaurav, Advocate, Mini Pushkarna, Advocate, Khushboo, Advocate, Latika, Advocate, Shikha, Advocate

The main legal point established in the judgment is the limited scope of judicial review in tender/contractual matters, emphasizing that courts cannot rewrite contracts and that the remedy for contractual disputes lies in seeking specific performance or through a civil suit.

Headnote:

Parking Site - Contractual Dispute - NIT 197 - Timarpur - [NIT 197] - [LOI, Provisional Allotment Letter, Corrigendum/Addendum No. 1] - The court discussed the issuance of NIT 197 for licensing a parking site at Timarpur, the LOI, provisional allotment letter, and corrigendum/addendum No. 1. It highlighted the conditions and requirements for the petitioner to secure the parking site and the subsequent dispute over the area of the site.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner, a parking contractor, participated in the bidding process for a parking site at Timarpur. After being declared the successful bidder, the petitioner was issued an LOI and a provisional allotment letter. However, the petitioner was not allowed to use the entire parking area and was restricted to only 5,005 sq. m. The petitioner sought redressal, claiming a concluded contract and alleging malafide actions by the respondent.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that there was no concluded contract between the parties, and the respondent's decision to retender the parking site was not arbitrary or unreasonable. It held that the petitioner's right to seek redressal and the respondent's right to retender the site were mutually exclusive. The court also emphasized that the petitioner's remedy, if any, lay in seeking specific performance or through a civil suit.

Issues: The issues revolved around the alleged concluded contract, the respondent's actions in retendering the parking site, and the petitioner's right to seek redressal for the alleged faulty actions of the respondent.

Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the absence of a concluded contract, the respondent's right to retender the site, and the limited scope of judicial review in tender/contractual matters. It emphasized that the petitioner's remedy, if any, lay in seeking specific performance or through a civil suit.

Final Decision: The petition was dismissed, and the court directed the respondent to permit the petitioner to participate in the retender, subject to fulfillment of conditions. The court clarified that the observations made would not prejudice the respective rights and contentions of the parties in any legal proceedings.

JUDGMENT

Manoj Kumar Ohri, J. - By way of the present petition filed under article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks the following reliefs:-

    'i. Call for the records relating to the Truck Parking Site at Timarpur, New Delhi;

    ii. allow the captioned Petition by issuing an appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of writ of certiorari quashing/setting aside the Impugned corrigendum/addendum No. 1 dated 11th april 2022, issued vide letter No. DC/RPCell/NDMC/2022/D-44;

    iii. allow the captioned Petition by issuing an appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of writ of certiorari quashing/setting aside the Impugned letter No. DC/RPCell/NorthDMC/2022/D-74 dated 18th april, 2022;

    iv. allow the captioned Petition by issuing an appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of a writ of mandamus directing Respondent to continue the license already been granted to the Petitioner and to execute the required license agreement in favour of the Petitioner for the area measuring 5005 sqm at the proportionately reduced monthly license fee and grant adjustment or refund of the excess amount deposited by Petitioner.'

    2. The facts as emerge from the record are that while the petitioner has claimed himself to be a parking contractor, the respondent is North Delhi Municipal Corporation, which is stated to have issued a notice inviting e-tender No. 197 (NIT) on 09.10.2020 for licensing of various parking sites falling under its jurisdiction on payment of advance Monthly License Fee basis (hereinafter, referred to as 'MLF'). The parking site in question was at Timarpur with total area of the site being 42,667.851 sq. m., out of which the parking area was only 38,015.62 sq. m. The minimum reserve price (hereinafter, referred to as 'MRP') was kept at Rs.9,45,000/-. The last date for submission of bid was 05.11.2020 and the last dates for opening of technical and financial bids were 09.11.2020 and 17.11.2020 respectively. The bid was to be accompanied by a sum of Rs.9,45,000/- as security deposit. as per the terms and conditions of the NIT, the successful bidder was also required to submit 1 month advance licence fee, 3 months security deposit and 4 months earnest money deposit, within 7 days of the receipt of Letter of Intent (hereinafter, referred to as the 'LOI').

    against the MRP of Rs.9,45,000/-, the petitioner submitted a bid for Rs.36,51,000/-. almost after one year, he was declared successful bidder and LOI dated 05.10.2021 was communicated to him by the respondent through e-mail dated 11.10.2021. The petitioner accepted the same vide e-mail dated 13.10.2021. The petitioner, vide letters dated 14.10.2021 and 25.10.2021, sought 5/6 months' more time to deposit the balance amount of Rs.2,46,12,000/- in terms of the NIT, after taking physical possession of the site. a provisional allotment Letter dated 11.11.2021 was issued by the respondent with certain conditions. The physical possession of the parking site was handed over to the petitioner on 18.11.2021.

    3. The petitioner has claimed that when he started operating the parking site, he was not allowed to use the entire parking area and was restricted to the use of only 5,005 sq. m. by the association of local shopkeepers. Eventually, vide letter dated 22.12.2021, he requested the respondent to look into the matter and sort out the issue. On 30.12.2021, even the officials of DDa told the petitioner not to use the area beyond 5,005 sq. m. for parking purposes. Pursuant to a letter sent by the petitioner, the DDa on 31.12.2021, through Executive Engineer, NMD-2 (ND-3), supplied the petitioner with layout plan and physical possession slip. In the said physical possession slip, it was stated that physical possession of the vacant designated parking site 'Truck Parking Timarpur' measuring area 5,005 sq. m. was handed over to Deputy Commissioner, R.P. Cell, North Delhi Municipal Corporation. By way of letter dated 31.12.2021, the DDa also communicated to the responden

                Click Here to Read the rest of this document
                1
                2
                3
                4
                5
                6
                7
                8
                9
                10
                11
                SupremeToday Portrait Ad
                supreme today icon
                logo-black

                An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

                Please visit our Training & Support
                Center or Contact Us for assistance

                qr

                Scan Me!

                India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

                For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

                whatsapp-icon Back to top