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

2023 Supreme(Del) 5796

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Vibhu Bakhru, Amit Mahajan, JJ.
M/s Pacific Development Corporation Ltd. (Concessionaire Of Delhi Metro Rail Corporation) - Appellant
Versus
South Delhi Municipal Corporation & Anr. - Respondents
LPA 130 of 2020 and CM Appl. 9216 of 2020, 9219 of 2020, 1145 of 2021 and 47364 of 2023
Decided On : 21-11-2023

Advocates appeared:
Mr Sudhir Nandrajog, Senior Advocate with Ms Meenakshi Jha, Advocate and Mr Neeraj Kumar, Advocate with Mr Sanjay Chauhan, A.R., for the Appellant; Mr Ajjay Arora, Advocate, Mr Kapil Dutta, Advocate and Mr Vansh Luthra, Advocate, for the Respondent No. 1, Ms Teena Srivastava, Advocate, for the Respondent No. 2.

IMPORTANT POINT
The Building Byelaws and MPD-2021 set out the development norms and standards for construction of buildings, but do not proscribe the charging of parking fees or control the terms on which buildings are used.

Headnote:

Parking Charges - Commercial Complex - Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957 - Building Byelaws - MPD-2021 - DMC Act

Fact of the Case:

The case involved a dispute over the collection of parking charges by M/s Pacific Development Corporation Ltd. (PDCL) for vehicles parked at the Pacific Mall. The Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) contended that the parking areas were not included in the Floor Area Ratio (FAR) and therefore, charging parking fees was impermissible. PDCL argued that the exclusion of parking spaces from the FAR did not prohibit the collection of charges for vehicle parking.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the Building Byelaws and MPD-2021 set out the development norms and standards for construction of buildings, and the FAR, ground coverage ratio, and height of the building effectively control the extent to which buildings can be built up. The court held that the Building Byelaws did not proscribe charging of parking fees or control the terms on which buildings are used. It also noted that the MCD had no authority to direct PDCL to provide parking space free of charge, as it would amount to expropriating the appellant's property without the authority of law.

Issues: The principal issue was whether PDCL was precluded from charging parking fees due to the parking space not being included in the FAR. Additionally, the court addressed the jurisdiction of the MCD to regulate the collection of parking charges at PDCL's premises.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the Building Byelaws and MPD-2021 controlled the development norms and standards for construction of buildings, but did not proscribe the charging of parking fees or control the terms on which buildings are used. It also found that the MCD had no authority to direct PDCL to provide parking space free of charge.

Final Decision: The appeal was allowed, and the impugned judgment was set aside. The order directing PDCL not to charge parking fees was also set aside.

JUDGMENT

Vibhu Bakhru, J. - The appellant, M/s Pacific Development Corporation Ltd. (hereafter PDCL) has filed the present intra court appeal impugning a judgment dated 10.02.2020 (hereafter the impugned judgment) delivered by the learned Single Judge of this Court, thereby rejecting, PDCLs petition - W.P.(C) 3712/2019 captioned M/s Pacific Development Corporation Ltd. v. South Delhi Municipal Corporation & Anr. PDCL had filed the said petition inter alia impugning an order dated 14.05.2018 issued by the Executive Engineer of South Delhi Municipal Corporation (hereafter SDMC) directing PDCL not to charge any parking charges in regard to the vehicles parked at the Pacific Metro Mall (hereafter Pacific Mall).

2. The principal controversy in the present appeal is whether PDCL is precluded from charging parking charges in respect of vehicles parked at the space earmarked for parking the vehicles at the Pacific Mall. According to Municipal Corporation of Delhi (hereafter MCD), it is impermissible for PDCL to charge parking charges in respect of the vehicles as the parking areas are not included for calculating the permissible Floor Area Ratio (FAR) of the commercial complex -Pacific Mall. MCD claims that since, the parking space is not included in the FAR, the said area cannot be commercially exploited or brought to any commercial use. Since collecting parking charges in respect of vehicles would amount to commercial exploitation of the parking space for commercial purpose, the same is impermissible. PDCL contends to the contrary. The parking spaces are not included in the FAR by virtue of the Unified Building Byelaws for Delhi, 2016 (hereafter "Building Byelaws") which prescribe the extent of permissible construction, which in turn is dependent on the total area of the plot on which a building is constructed. According to PDCL, the extent of permissible construction has no bearing on the question whether any charges can be levied for its use so long as the building conforms to the use for which it was sanctioned. PDCL claims that the exclusion of parking spaces from the FAR does not in any manner proscribe the collection of charges in respect of vehicles parked at the parking space.

Factual Context

3. Delhi Development Authority (hereafter DDA) had allotted land admeasuring 3.5 hectares (35000 square meters) at Khyala between Subhash Nagar and Tagore Garden Metro Stations to respondent no.2, Delhi Metro Rail Corporation, (hereafter DMRC) for the purposes of a construction depot. On 20.10.2006, DMRC issued a notice inviting bids for the development of a commercial building/mall on the subject land on Build-Operate-Transfer (BOT) basis. PDCL (then known as Naman Buildcon Ltd.) submitted its bid and was declared the successful bidder. DMRC entered into a Concession Agreement with PDCL on 08.03.2007.

4. In terms of the Concession Agreement, PDCL was required to develop, finance, construct, commission, operate, manage and maintain the commercial complex for a period of thirty years. Additionally, PDCL was liable to pay an upfront amount of Rs. 60 crores to DMRC and a further amount of Rs. 2.16 crores quarterly basis. It was also agreed that the quarterly payment would be increased by 20% successively on a compounding basis, on expiry of three years. The first increase being effective on expiry of three years from the date of the first payment. Under the Concession Agreement, PDCL was entitled to receive all receivables from the use of the commercial complex. Undisputedly, PDCL has discharged its liability.

5. On 30.03.2009, the Ministry of Urban Development (MoUD) issued an order, removing the condition of allotment, which restricted DMRC to use of the subject land only for the purposes for which it was allotted. DMRC was, thus, authorised to lease/sub-lease/license/grant concession in respect of the lands allotted to it inter alia for

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

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