A petitioner cannot enforce its private rights against a third party through a writ petition under article 226 of the Constitution of India.

JUDGMENT

Manoj Kumar Ohri, J. - CM aPPL. 17247/2022 (Exemption)

1. allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

2. The application stands disposed of.

W.P.(C) 5755/2022 & CM aPPL. 17246/2022 (Stay)

1. The present writ petition has been filed under article 226 of the Constitution of India on behalf of the petitioner seeking the following reliefs:-

'a. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus or any other writ thereby directing the Respondent Nos.1 to 3 to take appropriate action against the Respondent No.4 association and its members, Customers, local politicians etc. and stop them from interfering/creating any hindrance in the peaceful running of the authorized Parking Site of the Petitioner at Dwarka Sector -11 Market (Pocket-4), Dwarka.

b. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Certiorari or any other writ thereby restraining the Respondent No. 4 association from interfering in the peaceful running/Collection of parking charges/creating any obstacles in smooth running of the Parking Site of the Petitioner at Dwarka Sector -11 Market (Pocket-4), Dwarka.

c. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus or any other writ thereby directing the Respondent No. 1 not to charge any Monthly Licence Fee till the time the authorized Parking Site of the Petitioner at Dwarka Sector -11 Market (Pocket-4), Dwarka becomes fully functional.

d. any other or further order which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.'

2. The petitioner claims to be a Private Limited Company engaged in the business of running of Parking Sites under contracts/licenses issued by various Departments like MCD, DDa, Indian Railways, DMRC etc.

3. It is further claimed that respondent No.1/SDMC had floated NIT (Notice Inviting Tender) No.aC/RPC/SDMC/2021/D-200 dated 17.08.2021 for operation of various parking sites, including the parking site at Dwarka Sector-11 Market (Pocket 4), Delhi on monthly license fee for a period of five years. The petitioner, being the successful bidder, was issued an offer letter dated 21.10.2021 by the respondent/Corporation. Consequent to the same, the petitioner deposited three months' advance license fee i.e., Rs.7,56,324/- alongwith equivalent amount of security deposit/performance guarantee. Thus, the total amount deposited by the petitioner came to about Rs.15,12,648/-.

4. It is also claimed that vide letter dated 21.10.2021 bearing No.aC/RPC/SDMC/2021/D-412, the petitioner was directed to take over the possession of the parking site within a period of 7 days from the date of issuance of the offer letter and consequently, on 24.11.2021, the physical possession of the parking site was handed over to it vide possession letter bearing No.aC/RPC/SDMC/2021/D-509.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that when the petitioner sought to install the parking boards/banners, some of the shopkeepers of the local market gathered and stated that they would not pay parking charges to the petitioner. It is submitted that on account of resistance by the shopkeepers belonging to respondent No.4/association, the petitioner has not been able to operate the parking site. It is also the grievance of the petitioner that despite being informed, the SHO/respondent Nos. 2 & 3 failed to take necessary action.

6. In support of his submissions, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the order dated 17.08.2018 passed in Jagtar Singh v. Delhi State Industrial and Infrastructure Development Corporation Ltd. and Ors., W.P.(C) 8648/2018.

7. Learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.1, on the other hand, has taken a preliminary objection to the maintainability of the present petition. He has referred to the averments made in the petition as well as in the letters written by the petitioner to submit that concededly, the possession of the parking lot was handed over by respondent No. 1 to the petitioner, whereafter the local shopkeepers, state