Ranjeet Jha vs Mcd
2012 Latest Caselaw 1095 Del

*          IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+             W.P.(C) 3736/2011 & CM No.2127/2012

                                          Decided on: 16th February, 2012
IN THE MATTER OF
RANJEET JHA                                                 ..... Petitioner
                         Through: Mr. B.L. Wali, Advocate

                    versus

MCD                                                       ..... Respondent
                         Through: Ms. Mini Pushkarna, Standing Counsel,
                         MCD.

CORAM
HON'BLE MS.JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI

HIMA KOHLI, J. (Oral)

1. The petitioner has filed the present petition praying inter alia for

issuance of directions to the respondent/MCD to deliver possession of

car/scooter parking site at Sukha Ped, Mori Gate allotted to him vide

provisional offer letter dated 15.12.2010 at a monthly fee of `4,26,000/-

in terms of the site plan dated 5.4.2006 and not the changed site plan

dated 5.10.2010 issued by the respondent/MCD.

2. C.M. No.2127/2012 is filed by the petitioner praying inter alia for

staying the operation of the NIT dated 06.01.2012 and the corrigendum

dated 24.01.2012 issued by the respondent/MCD in respect of the bus

parking site at Mori Gate.

3. With the consent of the parties, the main writ petition is also taken

up for hearing, along with the pending application.

4. While counsel for the petitioner submits that the space for

car/scooter parking allotted to the petitioner is set out in a site plan dated

5.4.2006, the said contention is refuted by the learned counsel for the

respondent/MCD who states that right from the beginning, the petitioner

was well aware of the fact that the space allotted to him for car/scooter

parking was not as per site plan dated 5.4.2006, but as per site plan

dated 5.10.2010.

5. Having perused the documents placed on record by the parties and

upon examining the stands of both sides, it is clear that disputed

questions of facts have been raised and the same cannot be a subject

matter of adjudication in writ proceedings.

6. After addressing arguments at some length, counsel for the

petitioner seeks leave to withdraw the present petition and also the

pending application while reserving the right of the petitioner to seek his

remedies against the respondent/MCD on the civil side.

7. Leave, as prayed for, is granted. The petition is dismissed as

withdrawn alongwith the pending application.

8. While parting with this case, the Court is compelled to observe that

the terms and conditions of the NIT floated by the respondent/ MCD for

allotment of authorized parking sites in Delhi is completely silent on the

aspect of the exact space available at each parking site to be allocated.

Condition No.5 of the NIT placed on record in the present case, refers to

the responsibility of the tenderer before offering a bid, and it mentions

that the tenderer shall inspect the parking site, which will be given on "as

is where is basis" and the applicant may obtain necessary clarification, if

any, regarding the same to satisfy himself fully before offering a bid for

the same. It is the case of the respondent/MCD here that the exact

measurement of space at the site is ordinarily made available to the

tenderers at the time when performa applications are given to them for

participating in the tender process. However, this fact is not borne out

from a perusal of the terms and conditions of the tender documents, thus

leaving some scope for ambiguity on this aspect. This ambiguity in itself

has consistently been a reason for a spate of litigations between

successful bidders and the respondent/MCD on account of disputed

measurement of the space available at different sites. The simplest

method of obviating any such lingering dispute as to the exact space

allocated to a tenderer is to bring the same in public domain, at the stage

of floating of the tender, be it by way of displaying/making available a site

plan on paper, or in a C.D. or on the website of MCD.

9. Further, the submission of the counsel for the respondent/MCD that

a CD is also made available to an applicant at the time when he applies

for the tender document, is also not borne out from the terms and

conditions of the tender. Condition No.10 of the tender, which deals with

parking details, states that MCD shall supply a map of the space allocated

for parking of cars/scooters/motorcycles etc., for the licensee to use the

same strictly in accordance with the map. It is not understood why such

a map cannot be made available to the tenderer at the time when the

performa application is supplied to him by the MCD, so as to nip in the

bud any dispute raised at a later stage on account of the exact space

allocated to the tenderer at a particular parking site.

10. If it is the stand of the respondent/MCD that the terms and

conditions of the tender are available on its website, nothing precludes it

from adding the details of the space available at each parking site on the

said website, so that there is complete transparency with regard to the

exact parking space that would be ultimately allocated to a successful

bidder of a parking site. This can then be followed by the exchange of

maps of the space allocated by MCD for parking of vehicles, at the time of

handing over/taking over of the parking site. In the present case, it is

only because there is a dispute as to the exact space allocated to the

petitioner at the parking site in question that this Court is refraining from

entertaining the present petition.

A copy of this order shall be forwarded by the Registry forthwith to

the Commissioner, MCD, for perusal and for follow up action.

                                                             (HIMA KOHLI)
FEBRUARY 16, 2012                                               JUDGE
rkb