Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Sanjeev Sachdeva, J.
Shobhit Sharma - Appellant
Versus
Delhi Devlopment Authority - Respondent
W.P.(C) 8131 of 2021 & CM Appl. 25253 of 2021
Decided On : 22-09-2021
Contractual obligations of public entities must be strictly adhered to, especially regarding land-use decisions impacting competitive bidding processes.
Headnote:(A) Delhi Development Authority Act - Legal principles relating to contractual obligations on property procurement for public purposes discussed. - Petitioner challenges the DDA's award of a parking contract to another party, citing breaches in tender processes and subsequent alterations in parking land use by DDA. (Paras 1-3)
(B) Authority’s Obligations - DDA must adhere to prescribed terms for land utilization. It has failed to construct approved multi-level parking and wrongly allotted plots for surface parking. (Paras 8-15)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner was awarded a parking contract but alleges that DDA created additional parking spaces, impacting the viability of their bid. Subsequent orders establish DDA's obligation to construct specified parking infrastructure.
Findings of Court:
DDA's short-term lease to a third party was improperly executed, compromising the tender's integrity, but the current contract is set to expire soon, leaving the issue moot for now.
Issues: Whether DDA's actions regarding parking contracts violated tender conditions.
Ratio Decidendi: The court highlights DDA's obligation to adhere to the purpose for which land was transferred and that temporary contracts do not absolve the entity's duty to fulfill original commitments.
Result: Petition disposed of as per terms discussed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. details of parking contract disputes. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7) |
| 2. delay in construction and auction process. (Para 8 , 9 , 10) |
| 3. negotiations and decisions from meetings. (Para 11 , 12 , 13 , 14) |
| 4. court's refraining from commenting on legality. (Para 15 , 16 , 17 , 18) |
| 5. undertakings and obligations of the petitioner. (Para 19 , 20 , 21) |
| 6. disputes related to payment rates. (Para 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 28 , 29) |
| 7. disposal of petition. (Para 31) |
JUDGMENT
Sanjeev Sachdeva, J. (Oral)--Petitioner seeks quashing of the award of parking contract on license basis by the DDA to respondent No.3 and further seeks a restraint on the North Delhi Municipal Corporation from terminating or cancelling the contract awarded to the petitioner till the parking contract of respondent No.3 is cancelled/adjudicated upon by this Court.
2. It is the case of the petitioner that petitioner is a successful bidder for various parking lots vide Letter of Intent dated 21.06.2021. As per the petitioner when petitioner submitted his bids for the parking lot there was no additional parking existing at the spot.
3. It is contended that subsequently DDA has created additional surface parking in six plots which were handed over by the MCD to DDA solely for the purposes of construction of a multi level parking.
4. It is pointed out that by order dated 25.01.2021 in W.P(C) 1820/2020 titled Netaji Subhash Place Traders Welfare Association (Regd) vs. Delhi Development Authority & Ors, six plots were directed to be handed over to DDA solely for the purpose of construction of a multi level parking.
5. Learned counsel points out that in order dated 25.01.2021, the assurance of DDA is noticed that within one month the plots will be auctioned for the purposes of construction of multi level parking and in case DDA decided to construct the parking on its own, then the construction would commence within 3-4 months. It is pursuant to this direction that Municipal Corporation handed over six plots to DDA.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that DDA, instead of constructing the multi level parking, has allotted the plots for surface parking to respondent No.3. He submits that because of the allotment by DDA and creation of additional parking, the bid submitted by the petitioner is no longer serviceable as when the bid was submitted there was no additional parking and now additional surface parking is available on six more plots.
7. It may be noted for the purposes of record that the parking lots which were allotted to the Petitioner were not taken over by the petitioner for the above reasons and they have also been temporarily allotted to Respondent No. 3 for a short period.
8. Learned counsel appearing for the DDA admits that the plots were handed over to DDA for the purposes of constructing multi level parking. He however, submits that because of certain logistic and other administrative delays including the present pandemic, auction for construction of the parking could not take place.
9. He further submits that since there was delay in auctioning the contract for construction of multi level parking, an application has been filed before the said Court for extension of time. He submits that as the plots were lying idle and there was requirement for parking, DDA has been allotted the parking to respondent No.3 for only a short period of six months w.e.f. 05.04.2021 to 04.10.2021.
10. Learned counsel further under instructions submits that the request for proposal for inviting bids for construction of multi level parking is still in the process of finalisation and shall take about one more month and thereafter bids will be invited. He submits that in this view of the matter, the construction of parking is likely to commence after 3-4 months.
11. Learned counsel appearing for respondent No.3 submits that respondent No.3 is an allottee of the parking site for a short term period. She however, submits that during the perio
