JUDGMENT

Prathiba M. Singh, J. (Oral)--This hearing has been done by video conferencing.

2. The present writ petitions have been filed by various parking contractors who have been awarded parking contracts by the Delhi Metro Rail Corporation (hereinafter, `DMRC').

3. These petitions challenge the scheme awarded by the DMRC vide letter dated 1st December, 2020, for payment in respect of the period when the Covid-19 lockdown was in effect. The case of the Petitioners is that during the lockdown period, the DMRC has granted exemption from payment of licence fee for the period from 23rd March, 2020 to 11th September, 2020. Thereafter, however, a scheme has been devised for payment on a percentage basis, compared to the previous years' average metro train journeys.

4. Mr. Rakesh Tikku, ld. Sr. counsel appearing for the Petitioners submits that, on the one hand, traffic in the metro trains has not been the same as what it was in the previous years. Secondly, owing to the various conditions which have been imposed i.e., seats to be kept vacant and other terms for social distancing, traffic in the metro trains has considerably reduced. Ld. Senior counsel also submits that the apprehension of contracting Covid-19 and the concept of `work from home' becoming the trend has also considerably reduced the traffic. It is submitted that the Petitioners, who are parking contractors, did not originally wish to quit but had sought for much more reasonable conditions during the time when the pandemic is continuing. However, now the contractors wish to terminate the contract but the DMRC is imposing very onerous terms. The final submission is that in the proposed chart as to amounts payable, which has been given to the Petitioners by the DMRC, instead of taking the average of the total train journeys from the previous year, the total number of passengers ought to be taken into account.

5. On the other hand, Ms. Vibha Mahajan, ld. counsel appearing for the DMRC submits that there are three types of tenders which were floated in respect of parking contracts.

The first type was an `Old tender' where the period of license was three years and security deposit of four months' licence fee was taken. In the said kind of tender, four months' notice had to be given for termination, failing which, the security deposit would be forfeited.

The second category of tenders are `short term licences' for a period of six months for which two months' licence fee is taken as security deposit. If the termination is prior to six months, the security deposit is forfeited.

Final category are those which are awarded, in an `open tender process'. The period of licence in such tenders is four years and six months' licence fee is to be provided as security deposit. The lock-in period is of 12 months and after the lock-in period, 180 days' notice is to be given for termination. If termination is during the lock-in period or prior to the expiry of the 180 days' notice period, the security deposit is forfeited.

6. Ms. Mahajan, ld. counsel submits that in all three types of contracts, there are two levels of dispute resolution. Firstly, a conciliation process and secondly, an arbitration mechanism. It is submitted that all the Petitioners in these cases have multiple parking contracts of one or some of the above-mentioned categories and are well aware of the DMRC's conciliation and arbitration process. Ld. counsel finally relies upon the benefits given by the DMRC in respect of licence fee during the lockdown and submits that the waivers etc., given by DMRC are very reasonable.

7. On a specific query from the Court, Ms. Mahajan, ld. counsel, sought a clarification from Mr. Sushant Tripathi, Legal Officer, DMRC. Ld. Counsel then submits that the total journeys which are contemplated in the scheme for payment of licence fee would, in effect, be total passenger journeys and not total train journeys.

8. On this clarification being given, Mr. Rakesh Tikku, ld. Sr. counse