Delhi High Court
Transport Corpn Of India Ltd. vs Mcd And Ors. on 30 August, 2006
Author: M Mudgal
Bench: M Mudgal, S Muralidhar
JUDGMENT
Mukul Mudgal, J.
1. This writ petition challenges the action of the respondent MCD in demanding higher charges for grant of plots beyond the first plot at the Sanjay Gandhi Transport Nagar. By its letter dated 22.1.1987, MCD sought to charge a sum of Rs. 2.2 lakhs for the first plot, Rs. 6.6 lakhs for the second and Rs. 11 lakhs for the third, all of the same size of 440 sq. mtr. The criteria is to be found in the resolution No. 705 dated 23rd November, 1987 of the MCD, which reads as under:
Applicants qualified by criteria (a&b) above will all be given the plots each in lieu of their premises area of (sic) measuring up to 500 sq. m. For every 500 sq. m. additional area or fraction thereof under their usage applicants will be entitled to an additional plot of applicable size. For the next one commercial price which will be three time the reserved price and for the remaining additional plots mkt. price which will be five time the reserve price.
2. The issue involved in the present writ petition was the subject matter of Writ Petition (C) No. 1648/1989 (Pal Goods Transport Co. v. MCD) which came to be disposed of by the judgment dated 21.3.2001 of the Division Bench of this Court. The operative portion of the said order dated 21.3.2001 of the Division Bench reads as under:
We do not see any infirmity in the policy of the MCD. In case a person requires more than one plot then in that event MCD is fully justified in demanding higher price than the reserve price for the additional plots beyond one plot. A person cannot be allowed to take more than one plot by paying reserve price, which is highly subsidized. The demand of the MCD for higher price for 2nd, 3rd and 4th plots was totally justified. Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that his client is willing to pay the higher price as demanded by the MCD. But he contests the levy of interest on the amount which has been claimed by the MCD. It appears to us that the MCD is not justified in claiming 18% interest per annum on the balance amount which is required to be paid by the petitioner as the MCD has delayed the disposal of the writ petition by not filing the counter affidavit for a period of about ten years. In the interest of justice we reduce the interest from 18 per cent p.a. to 12 per cent p.a. Learned Counsel for the petitioner states that the amount demanded along with interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum shall be paid to the MCD within a period of four months.
In the circumstances, the writ petition is disposed of with the above directions.
3. Against the said judgment of the Division Bench, MCD filed a Special Leave Petition (C) No. 13734/2001 in the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The said SLP was dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court by an order dated 21.1.2002. Thus the aforesaid judgment dated 21.3.2001 of the Division Bench of this Court has become final. We are of the view that the issue raised in the present writ petition regarding the charges for the plots in question is fully covered by the aforesaid judgment of the Division Bench dated 21.3.2001. Accordingly the present writ petition deserves to be disposed of in terms of the said order.
4. The learned Counsel for the petitioner points out that a further prayer in the writ petition is for a direction to the MCD to allot a fourth plot for which the petitioner has already made the payment. The learned Counsel for the respondent MCD states that the case of the petitioner for allotment of the fourth plot shall be considered in accordance with the policy of the MCD and in case the petitioner is found to be entitled the said plot shall be allotted to him. This Court had, on 5.3.1987, while directing notice to issue in the writ petition, directed the MCD to keep in reserve one plot of the size 440 sq. m. for the petitioner. Accordingly, we direct that till such time the petitioner's plea for the allotment of the fourth plot is disposed of by the MCD, the said interim order dated 5.3.1987 shall continue. In the event that the petitioner is aggrieved by the refusal of the MCD to allot a fourth plot to the petitioner, it will be open to the petitioner to challenge the said refusal in appropriate proceedings.
5. With the above directions, the writ petition stands disposed of in terms of the order dated 31.3.2001 in WP(C) No. 1648/1989.
CM No. 6315/2006
This application seeks substitution of the applicant Gati Limited in place of petitioner in view of a scheme of arrangement sanctioned by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh. This application is opposed both by the learned Counsel for the petitioner as well as by the MCD on the ground that the issue in this writ petition arose much prior to the said arrangement and was not covered by it. Accordingly, we decline to pass any order on this application for impleadment of the applicant. However, it is open to the applicant to assert its right in appropriate proceedings. Accordingly, the application is dismissed.
