Delhi High Court
M/S Nyoni Enterprises Pvt. Ltd vs South Delhi Muncipal Corporation ... on 7 April, 2022
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 5755/2022
Date of Decision: 07.04.2022
IN THE MATTER OF:
M/S NYONI ENTERPRISES PVT. LTD ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Arun Batta, Ms. Indira & Ms.
Neha Kumari, Advocates
Versus
SOUTH DELHI MUNCIPAL CORPORATION & ORS..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Tushar Sannu, Standing Counsel
for SDMC/Respondent No. 1 alongwith Ms.
Priyansha Sinha, Advocate alongwith W/SI
Mamta, P.S. Dwarka South
Mr. Achal Gupta, Advocate for Respondent
Nos. 2 & 3
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR OHRI
JUDGMENT
MANOJ KUMAR OHRI, J. (ORAL)
CM APPL. 17247/2022 (Exemption)
1. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
2. The application stands disposed of.
W.P.(C) 5755/2022 & CM APPL. 17246/2022 (Stay)
1. The present writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India on behalf of the petitioner seeking the following
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:SANGEETA ANAND
Signing Date:12.04.2022
11:18:42
reliefs:-
"a. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus
or any other writ thereby directing the Respondent Nos.1 to 3 to
take appropriate action against the Respondent No.4 Association
and its members, Customers, local politicians etc. and stop them
from interfering/creating any hindrance in the peaceful running of
the authorized Parking Site of the Petitioner at Dwarka Sector -11
Market (Pocket-4), Dwarka.
b. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Certiorari or
any other writ thereby restraining the Respondent No. 4
Association from interfering in the peaceful running/Collection of
parking charges/creating any obstacles in smooth running of the
Parking Site of the Petitioner at Dwarka Sector -11 Market
(Pocket-4), Dwarka.
c. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus or
any other writ thereby directing the Respondent No. 1 not to
charge any Monthly Licence Fee till the time the authorized
Parking Site of the Petitioner at Dwarka Sector -11 Market
(Pocket-4), Dwarka becomes fully functional.
d. Any other or further order which this Hon'ble Court may deem
fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case."
2. The petitioner claims to be a Private Limited Company engaged in
the business of running of Parking Sites under contracts/licenses issued
by various Departments like MCD, DDA, Indian Railways, DMRC etc.
3. It is further claimed that respondent No.1/SDMC had floated NIT
(Notice Inviting Tender) No.AC/RPC/SDMC/2021/D-200 dated
17.08.2021 for operation of various parking sites, including the parking
site at Dwarka Sector-11 Market (Pocket 4), Delhi on monthly license
fee for a period of five years. The petitioner, being the successful bidder,
was issued an offer letter dated 21.10.2021 by the
respondent/Corporation. Consequent to the same, the petitioner deposited
three months' advance license fee i.e., Rs.7,56,324/- alongwith
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:SANGEETA ANAND
Signing Date:12.04.2022
11:18:42
equivalent amount of security deposit/performance guarantee. Thus, the
total amount deposited by the petitioner came to about Rs.15,12,648/-.
4. It is also claimed that vide letter dated 21.10.2021 bearing
No.AC/RPC/SDMC/2021/D-412, the petitioner was directed to take over
the possession of the parking site within a period of 7 days from the date
of issuance of the offer letter and consequently, on 24.11.2021, the
physical possession of the parking site was handed over to it vide
possession letter bearing No.AC/RPC/SDMC/2021/D-509.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that when the
petitioner sought to install the parking boards/banners, some of the
shopkeepers of the local market gathered and stated that they would not
pay parking charges to the petitioner. It is submitted that on account of
resistance by the shopkeepers belonging to respondent No.4/Association,
the petitioner has not been able to operate the parking site. It is also the
grievance of the petitioner that despite being informed, the
SHO/respondent Nos. 2 & 3 failed to take necessary action.
6. In support of his submissions, learned counsel for the petitioner
has placed reliance on the order dated 17.08.2018 passed in Jagtar Singh
v. Delhi State Industrial and Infrastructure Development Corporation
Ltd. and Ors., W.P.(C) 8648/2018.
7. Learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent
No.1, on the other hand, has taken a preliminary objection to the
maintainability of the present petition. He has referred to the averments
made in the petition as well as in the letters written by the petitioner to
submit that concededly, the possession of the parking lot was handed
over by respondent No. 1 to the petitioner, whereafter the local
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:SANGEETA ANAND
Signing Date:12.04.2022
11:18:42
shopkeepers, stated to be the members of Respondent No. 4/Association,
obstructed its way to operate the parking site.
8. I have heard learned counsels for the parties and perused the
material placed on record.
9. Admittedly, the petitioner was awarded a contract to operate the
parking site at the subject property and the possession of the parking site
was also handed over to it.
10. The petitioner has neither raised any issue with respect to the NIT
nor imputed any shortcoming to respondent No.1/Corporation. It is also
not the petitioner's case that the parking site by itself cannot be put to
use. The only issue agitated on behalf of the petitioner is that the local
shopkeepers, stated to be belonging to respondent No. 4/Association, are
causing hindrance in the petitioner's operation of the subject parking site.
11. There is no gainsaying that remedy under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India lies against action of the State and indeed,
respondent No. 1/Corporation is an instrumentality of the State within the
meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India. However, a perusal of
the averments made in the petition as well as submissions made by
learned counsel for the petitioner would show that the petitioner has not
made out any grievance against respondent No.1/Corporation. The
petitioner's sole grievance is against the shopkeepers, stated to be
belonging to respondent No.4/Association.
12. In this backdrop, suffice it to note, the petitioner cannot enforce its
private rights against the members of respondent No. 4/Association by
way of a writ petition. Even the alleged inaction of the police authorities
i.e., Respondent Nos. 2 & 3 cannot be assailed in the present proceedings
as alternate remedy is available with the petitioner.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:SANGEETA ANAND
Signing Date:12.04.2022
11:18:42
13. Further, the reliance placed by learned counsel for the petitioner on
the order passed in Jagtar Singh (Supra) is misplaced as the said order
was only interim in nature, whereby the petitioner was given liberty to
approach the concerned SHO. In fact, on the next date of hearing, the
petition was dismissed as withdrawn.
14. In view of the aforesaid, the present petition is dismissed,
alongwith the pending application.
15. It is clarified that this Court has not gone into the merits of the
contentions raised. As such, the rights and contentions of the parties shall
remain reserved.
(MANOJ KUMAR OHRI)
JUDGE
APRIL 07, 2022
p'ma
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:SANGEETA ANAND
Signing Date:12.04.2022
11:18:42
