Narender Kumar vs Mcd & Anr
2010 Latest Caselaw 4959 Del

                                                                 UNREPORTABLE


*      IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI


                                  W.P. (C) No.7829/2009


                                               Date of Decision: October 27, 2010


       NARENDER KUMAR                ..... Petitioner
                    through Mr. B.L.Wali, Advocate

                         versus


       MCD & ANR                                ..... Respondents
                                 through Ms. Mini Pushkarna, Advocate for
                                 respondent No.1.
                                 Ms. Sangeeta Chandra, Advocate for
                                 respondent No.2.

       CORAM:
       HON'BLE MISS JUSTICE REKHA SHARMA

1.     Whether the reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the
       judgment? No
2.     To be referred to the reporter or not? No
3.     Whether the judgment should be reported in the 'Digest'? No

REKHA SHARMA, J. (ORAL)

The petitioner has been allotted Car / Scooter parking site behind

D.T.C. Bus Depot, Wazirpur, Netaji Subhash Palace by

respondent No.1 - the Municipal Corporation of Delhi vide Provisional

Offer Letter dated October 16, 2006. The allotment has been made for

a period of five years on the condition that the contract shall be

renewed after the expiry of every one year with enhancement of

monthly licence fee by 5%. It is also a term of the allotment that the

Commissioner, Municipal Corporation of Delhi will have the sole

discretion to terminate the contract at any time without assigning any

reason or without any previous notice in public interest.

It so happened that after the allotment was made in favour of

petitioner by respondent No.1, respondent No.2, i.e. the Delhi

Development Authority also invited tenders to allot parking space and

what is of significance is that the tenders so invited were in respect of

the same site which stood already allotted to the petitioner. Feeling

aggrieved by the action of respondent No. 2, the petitioner filed the

present writ petition in which this court passed order dated

April 16, 2009 and thereby though it permitted the Delhi Development

Authority to open the tender for allotment but restrained it from

allotting the same till further orders of the Court.

It is the case of the petitioner that the Municipal Corporation of

Delhi having allotted the site to him for parking purposes for a period

of five years, he is entitled to use the same till the expiry of the said

period without interference or hindrance from either the Municipal

Corporation of Delhi or by the Delhi Development Authority.

On the other hand, it is the case of respondent No.1 that the

parking site which has been allotted to the petitioner belongs to the

Delhi Development Authority and that the allotment in favour of the

petitioner was made under a misconception. It is also the case of

respondent no. 1 that the Commissioner Municipal Corporation of Delhi

has discretion to terminate the allotment at any time without assigning

any reason. It is, however, not disputed that so far as the

Commissioner has not exercised his discretion of cancelling the

allotment without assigning any reason.

Assuming as contended that respondent No.1 was labouring

under a misconception that the site in question belonged to it whereas

it actually belonged to the Delhi Development Authority , I see no

reason why the petitioner who is a bonafide allottee of the site should

be made to suffer for the fault of respondent No.1 or respondent no.2.

He had submitted a tender pursuant to a tender notice of the Municipal

Corporation of Delhi and the same having been accepted by it, neither

the Delhi Development Authority nor the Municipal Corporation of Delhi

has any right to interfere in his running the site in terms of the of the

Provisional Offer Letter dated October 16, 2006, unless of-course he is

found violating any of the terms of the said letter. Having said so, I

may make it clear that I am making no comment on the discretion of

the Commissioner, Municipal Corporation of Delhi to cancel the

allotment made to the petitioner without assigning any reason or

without any previous notice in public interest. If the Commissioner

exercises any such discretion it will be open to the petitioner to

challenge the same in appropriate proceeding, but so long as no such

order has been passed, the petitioner shall have the right to run the

parking site without hindrance or interference from either respondent

No.1 or respondent No.2 in terms of the Provisional Offer Letter dated

October 16, 2006.

The writ-petition is allowed.

REKHA SHARMA, J.

OCTOBER 27, 2010 ka