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

2021 Supreme(Guj) 723

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
J.B. Pardiwala, Vaibhavi D. Nanavati, JJ.
Shree Ram Corporation – Petitioner
Versus
Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation – Respondent
R/Special Civil Application No. 10694 of 2020
Decided On : 24-08-2021

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr KV Shelat
For the Respondent: Mr Anuj K Trivedi

Point of law: Not only is the writ jurisdiction of this Court invoked in a purely contractual matter, having no colour of public law and the writ remedy is thus not maintainable.

Headnote:

Constitution of India,1950 – Article 14,19(1)(g) r/w 21 and Article 226 - Contract – Parking - Municipal Corporation published a Notice for " Multi-level Parking" "Pay and Park" Contract for an initial period years which may be mutually extended - Multilevel Parking is situated close to Bus Stand and has capacity of 371 parking spaces for cars and 585 parking spaces for 2- wheelers, out of which the tender was for 309 parking spaces for cars and 461 parking spaces for 2-wheelers since rest were allotted to owners of shops and establishments - AMC vide its work order awarded subject contract to writ-applicant - He submitted that by letters writ-applicant requested respondent-AMC to declare a no-parking zone around 200 metres of Multi-Level Parking as also to install parking barriers as also to regularly clean parking premises so that parking facilities may be adequately and safely utilized.

Finding of the Court:

Civil Appeal titled National Highway Authority of India Vs. M.E.I.L.- EDB-LLC (J.V.) set aside the judgment of a Division Bench of Delhi High Court holding forfeiture of security deposit amount by MHAI to be bad and Supreme Court held that such question can be adjudicated only in a suit or in arbitration - In view of the rival contentions made by writ-applicant and the respondent No.1 – Corporation and settled legal position on question of forfeiture of deposit for non- compliance of tender conditions, court are not inclined to entertain this writ-application under Article 226 of Constitution of India - Respondent No.1 – Corporation has acted in accordance with terms of the contract and fairly waived the license fees - Respondent No.1 – Corporation has terminated the contract at instance of the writ-applicant - Therefore, no error can be said to have been committed by the respondent No.1 – Corporation - Court see no reason to interfere in the forfeiture of security deposit.

Result: Writ dismissed

JUDGMENT :

Vaibhavi D. Nanavati, J.

1. By way of this writ-application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the writ-applicant has sought the following reliefs :-

    “(A) The Hon’ble Court be pleased to issue writ of Mandamus, or any other writ, order or direction, directing the Respondent Authorities to refund the Security Deposit amount of Rs.9 62,750 with 9% per annum rate of interest from the date of deposit till payment to the Petitioner by holding that forfeiture of the Security Deposit during COVID-19 Pandemic by the Respondent Authorities is illegal, arbitrary, unjust, unreasonable, without any basis, in colorable exercise of powers, without authority of law and rules and regulations applicable and consequently such forfeiture of Security Deposit is violative of Articles 14, 19(1) (g) r/w Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

(B) Pending hearing and final disposal of this petition, the Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue writ of Mandamus, or any other writ, order or direction, directing the Respondent Authorities to deposit the Security Deposit amount of Rs. 9,62,750 before the High Court Registry.

(C) The Hon'ble Court be pleased to grant Ad-interim Relief in terms of Para 12(B).

(D) Pass such other and further orders as may be deemed just and expedient.”

2. Facts relevant for the purpose of deciding this writ application can be summarized as under :-

2.1 The Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation (for short 'AMC') published a Notice for "Navrangpura Multi-level Parking" "Pay and Park" Contract in November, 2018 for an initial period of 03 years which may be mutually extended for 01 year and maximum for 02 years. The Navrangpura Multilevel Parking is situated close to the Navrangpura Bus Stand and has capacity of 371 parking spaces for cars and 585 parking spaces for 2- wheelers, out of which the tender was for 309 parking spaces for cars and 461 parking spaces for 2-wheelers since the rest were allotted to owners of shops and establishments. The AMC vide its work order dated 29.12.2018 awarded the above subject contract to the writ-applicant.

Submissions on behalf of the writ-applicant :-

3. Mr. K. V. Shelat, the learned counsel appearing for the writ-applicant submitted that the writ-applicant was awarded contract on 29.12.2018 and was directed to start work from 1.1.2019. He submitted that the writ-applicant had paid the License Fee regularly after taking charge w.e.f 1.1.2019.

3.1 He submitted that by letters dated 4.2.2019 the writ-applicant requested the respondent-AMC to declare a no-parking zone around 200 metres of the Multi-Level Parking as also to install parking barriers as also to regularly clean the parking premises so that parking facilities may be adequately and safely utilized. The writ-applicant had also time and again requested the respondent-AMC to install Boom Barrier for effective performance of the contract which were installed initially but after 3-4 months the same were removed which was complained of by the writ-applicant by letter dated 19.6.2019 stating that the general public was misusing the parking premises without paying any parking fee.

3.2 He submitted that several other difficulties were faced by the writ-applicant on account of the non-cooperation on the part of the respondent-AMC and though requested several times, the said breaches were not remedied. Despite which, the writ-applicant always cooperated with the respondent-AMC and acceded their various requests from time to time. Further, the writ-applicant by letter dated 13.12.2019 requested the respondent-AMC to restart the CCTV cameras to ensure the safety of the vehicles parked in the vicinity.

3.3 He submitted that the writ-applicant had paid an amount of Rs. 3 Lacs as Security Deposit (SD) on 15.12.2018 for which Receipt No.20181215-4000462-777382-0026 was generated and further amount of Rs.6,62,750 came to be paid as Security Deposit on 24.1.2019 as directed by respondent-AMC for which Receipt No. 20190124-4000462-009-0011 was generate

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