IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Sanjeev Sachdeva, J.
MEP Infrastructure Developers Ltd. - Appellant
Versus
South Delhi Municipal Corporation - Respondent
W.P.(C) 2241 of 2020 & CM Appl. 7822 of 2020, CM Appl. 11092 of 2020, CM Appl. 6420 of 2021 and CM Appl. 7038 of 2021
Decided On : 09-04-2021
JUDGMENT
Sanjeev Sachdeva, J. Consequent to a bidding process, Petitioner was awarded a Contract by the South Delhi Municipal Corporation (hereinafter referred to the SDMC), for collection of Toll Tax & Environment Compensation Charge (ECC for short) from specified commercial Vehicles at the 124 toll plazas/posts/barriers bordering Delhi.
2. Petitioner has filed the subject Petition inter alia impugning, order dated 31.01.2020, passed by the Commissioner SDMC rejecting its representation; the demand notice dated 14.02.2020 issued by the Respondent Corporation demanding the weekly remittances envisaged by the Contract agreement along with penalty @ 0.1% per day; termination notice dated 16.03.2020; consequent notice inviting tender dated 28.04.2020 and the encashment of its bank guarantees.
3. Subject Writ Petition was filed on 19.02.2020. Petition was subsequently amended because of subsequent events.
PRAYERS IN THE WRIT PETITION
4. Petitioner by the amended Petition dated 18.05.2020 seeks the following reliefs:
"a. Issue of a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ and appoint an independent Adjudicator to adjudicate the claims of the Petitioner;
b. Issue a declaratory writ to the effect that clause 16 of the agreement which provides for adjudication mechanism has been left unworkable on account of actions and inactions of the SDMC Commissioner;
c. Issue a writ of certiorari and quash the order dated 31.01.2020 passed by the Commissioner SDMC.
d. Quash the Impugned Notice dated 14.02.2020 issues consequent to the impugned Order.
e. During the pendency of the writ petition, stay the Impugned Notice dated 14.02.2020;
f. Issuance a suitable writ, order and direction declaring that in the guise of section 113 (2) (g) of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957 the Petitioner cannot be compelled to pay to the Respondent no.1 more than the actual amount collected towards toll tax from commercial vehicles entering the NCT, Delhi;
g. Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the Respondents to make a fresh assessment as to the circumstances affecting toll collection taking into account the circumstances highlighted by the Petitioner and reassess and redetermine the annual/weekly amount payable by the Petitioner to the SDMC towards toll tax;
h. Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the Respondents to take into consideration the change in circumstances make suitable downward revision in the weekly/annual remittance commensurate with the reduction in toll tax paying commercial vehicles and taking into account the tax leakages on account of free lanes;
i. Issue a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the demand of 0.1 % per day that is 36.5% per annum in the demand letter dated 18.11.2019 as being in terrorem and inequitable.
iA. Be pleased to quash the letter of termination dated 16.03.2020 issued by the Respondent to the Petitioner.
iB. Be pleased to quash the NIT dated 28.04.2020 issued by the Respondent consequent to the notice of termination dated 16.03.2020.
iC. During the pendency of this Writ Petition, pass ad interim order directing the Respondent to keep in abeyance the Termination Notice dated 16.03.2020 as well as NIT dated 28.04.2020 for fresh bidding for collection of tax, till the final disposal of the instant writ petition.
j. To issue a Writ order or direction in the nature of CERTIORARI and quash the Termination Notice dated 16.03.2020 and subsequent extension of termination date issued by the Respondent as being illegal.
k. To issue a Writ order or direction in the nature of CERTIORARI and quash the NIT dated 27.04.2020 issued by the Respondent consequent to the notice of termination dated 16.03.2020.
l. During the pendency of this Writ Petition, pass ad interim order directing the Respondent to keep in abeyance the Termination Notice dated 16.03.2020 and subsequent extension of termination date as well as NIT dated 27.04.2020 for fresh bidding for collection of tax, till the final d
Parties to a contract must adhere to its terms despite unforeseen circumstances like force majeure, and disputes arising from such a contract should be resolved through contractual mechanisms, not ju....
Point of Law : Commercial Vehicles - Toll plazas/posts/barriers - Collection of Toll Tax – Whether rights of petitioner is violated - Conduct of parties is governed by the Contract Agreement and the ....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that contractual disputes between the State and private parties should be resolved in accordance with the terms of the contract and the laws relati....
Petitioner cannot invoke writ jurisdiction for contractual disputes without public element; claims must be addressed through appropriate legal channels.
Limited judicial review in contractual matters, and the requirement for the decision-making authority to consider all relevant material before passing an order.
Termination of a contract without issuing a show-cause notice violates the principles of natural justice. Force majeure claims must be decided before taking any action based on non-compliance with th....
The court reaffirmed that contractual disputes with an arbitration clause are not maintainable under Article 226 unless exceptional circumstances arise, emphasizing lawful forfeiture of security for ....
The court established that contractual obligations must be fulfilled by both parties, and local issues do not absolve the petitioner from compliance with the contract terms.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.