Delhi High Court
Inderbir Singh vs North Delhi Municipal ... on 5 February, 2018
$~48
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Judgment: 05th February, 2018
+ W.P.(C) 10637/2016
INDERBIR SINGH ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. B.L. Wali, Advocate.
versus
NORTH DELHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION ..... Respondent
Through: Ms. Mini Pushkarna, Standing Counsel for
NDMC.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S.SISTANI
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL
G.S.SISTANI, J. (ORAL)
1. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. By
this petition, petitioner seeks following reliefs :
(i) issue an appropriate writ, order or direction to the respondent to
immediately issue LOIs/Offer letters to the petitioner in respect
of parking sites at (i) Karampura Commercial Complex, (ii) in
front of Milan Cinema and MCD Shops, (iii) Covered Drain,
Ramesh Nagar and (iv) Parking site near Manglam Plaza,
Rohini, Plot No.7 (Vardhaman Plaza) being at serial Nos.7, 8, 9
and 17 of NIT Parking List issued by the respondent for
allotment of parking sites for which the petitioner stood the
highest bidder.
(ii) issue an appropriate writ, order or direction to the respondent
not to cancel and /or re-auction the parking sites at (i)
Karampura Commercial Complex, (ii) in front of Milan Cinema
and MCD Shops, (iii) Covered Drain, Ramesh Nagar and (iv)
Parking site near Manglam Plaza, Rohini, Plot No.7
(Vardhaman Plaza) for which the petitioner has been declared as
the highest bidder by the respondent.
(iii) Award costs in favour of the petitioner and against the
respondent.
2. On 02.09.2016 the respondent invited e-tenders from parking
contractors/firms/companies/individuals for e-allotment for e-auction
to allot various parking site on payment of advance monthly licence
fee basis. On 13.10.2016, the petitioner made an offer with respect to
four sites at different monthly licence fee of Rs.1,72,600/- in respect
of parking site at Karkardooma Commercial complex; Rs.22,000/- per
month in front of Milan Cinema and MCD shops; Rs.3,54,300/- per
month in respect of parking site at covered drain, Ramesh Nagar and
Rs.10,00300/- per month in respect of parking site near Manglam
Plaza, Rohini and the petitioner was declared the highest bidder.
3. Vide communication dated 17.10.2016, the petitioner was directed to
produce updated bank statement/passbook upto 07.10.2016 latest by
18.10.2016 by 3.00pm positively.
4. It is the case of the petitioner that he appeared on 18.10.2016 and
produced the relevant documents and was assured that an allotment
letter would be issued to him. However, since the allotment letter was
not issued, he addressed letters dated 19.10.2016 and 03.11.2016 and
requested the respondent to issue the allotment letter or refund the
earnest money. Having received no reply to the letters, the petitioner
approached this Court by filing the present writ petition.
5. Notice was issued in the matter and on the next date of hearing,
interim protection was granted to the petitioner which was
subsequently vacated as the counsel for the petitioner was not present
(Mr. Wali submits that he was indisposed).
6. Counter affidavit has been filed. As per the counter affidavit, on being
suspicious that the petitioner was a Benami tenderer, he was called
upon to furnish his bank statement. Upon examining the bank
statement on 18.10.2016, the petitioner was confronted with the
extremely low balance in the bank accounts. The petitioner admitted
that the bids made by him were Benami. The petitioner made an
endorsement on one of the Summary of Account, "I undertake that the
bids submitted by me on 13.10.2016 are Benami and as per TNC, I am
not eligible, I hereby withdraw my bids".
7. Counsel for the respondents contends that as the petitioner had
admitted that the bids submitted by him were Benami and accordingly
the earnest money is liable to be forfeited. Reliance is placed on clause
2 B (ii) (b) of the terms and condition of the tender and licence
agreement.
8. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he has not received any
communication informing him that the earnest money has been
forfeited in fact no reply has been received pursuant to any of his
communications. He further submits that as per the counter affidavit,
there is no reference of the earnest money being forfeited nor copy of
such reply has been annexed with the counter affidavit.
9. At this stage, counsel for the respondents on instructions submits that
in fact a cancellation letter has been issued and in case the petitioner
has not received the same another copy shall be furnished to him
through counsel within three days.
10. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties. Although, we find it
rather strange that the respondent has not bothered to reply to
communications dated 19.10.2016 and 03.11.2016 addressed by the
petitioner to them. We find it equally strange that the tender was
floated in the year 2016 and till year 2018, neither the MCD has
chosen to respond to the letters of a citizen nor issued any
communication to the petitioner informing him that earnest money has
been forfeited.
11. Learned counsel for the respondent has relied upon para 2 B (ii) (b) of
the terms and conditions of the tender and licence agreement for
allotment of North Delhi Municipal Corporation Authorised Parking
sites on monthly licence fee basis, which reads as under:
"No Benami tender has been submitted by him/them in the
name of his/their dependent family members, employees,
officials, servants or associated person, firm, company and
in case it is found at any subsequent stage that any such
Benami tender has been submitted or contract is allotted
on the basis of such Benami tender, the tender/agreement
shall be liable to be rescinded, the contractor blacklisted
and the security forfeited".
12. At this stage, counsel for the petitioner submits that since his earnest
money has been forfeited, the petitioner does not press this petition but
would assail the said decision raising all grounds including the
grounds urged in this writ petition. Accordingly, let a copy of the
cancellation letter be furnished to the petitioner within three days
through.
13. It would be open for the petitioner if so advised to assail the said letter
in accordance with law raising all grounds available to him including
the grounds urged in this writ petition.
14. This petition is dismissed as not pressed in above terms.
CM No.41703/2016
In view of the order passed in this writ petition, the present application
is rendered infructous.
G.S.SISTANI, J.
SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL, J
FEBRUARY 05, 2018
afa
