Delhi High Court
Smt. Sunita Bhalla vs South Delhi Municipal ... on 3 March, 2022
$~12
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment delivered on: 03.03.2022
+ W.P.(C) 2178/2022
SMT. SUNITA BHALLA ...... Petitioner
versus
SOUTH DELHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION....Respondent
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner: Mr. Ishan Sanghi, Advocate.
For the Respondent: Mr. Vikrant N. Goyal, Advocate for SDMC
CORAM:-
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA
JUDGMENT
SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J. (ORAL)
1. Petitioner seeks a direction to respondent to release vehicle No.
DL1VC-0201 (RTV mini bus), which is in the name of late husband
of the petitioner, Mr. Ashwani Kumar Bhalla.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is a
widow, whose husband has expired recently on 24.07.2021 and the
petition has been filed through legal aid.
Digitally Signed
Signature Not Verified By:JUSTICE SANJEEV
Digital Signed By:KUNAL SACHDEVA
MAGGU Signing Date:03.03.2022
Signing Date:04.03.2022 11:52:11 21:00
This file is digitally signed by PS
to HMJ Sanjeev Sachdeva.
3. It is contended in the petition that late husband of the petitioner
was the registered owner of the said vehicle, RTV mini bus and after
the demise of her husband, the vehicle was parked in the authorized
parking lot of Metro Station, Dwarka, Sector -14.
4. It is stated that petitioner and her family members went to their
parents' house in Chhattisgarh for performing last rites of late Mr.
Ashwani Kumar Bhalla. When petitioner returned after performing
the last rites of her husband, she came to know that the vehicle had
been removed from the parking lot by the officials of the respondent.
5. It is contended that on 14.10.2021, she visited the office of the
respondent alongwith her son seeking release of the vehicle.
However, respondent demanded a huge amount as charges for release
of the vehicle and since she had lost her husband, she could not
deposit the same. It is further contended that demand of charges is
illegal and contrary to law.
6. Thereafter, it is contended that Petitioner had repeatedly visited
the office of the respondent but the vehicle has not been released and
the demand is in several lakhs of rupees.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the husband of
the petitioner had availed of a loan facility and petitioner is unable to
discharge the loan because the vehicle is seized by the respondents.
Digitally Signed
Signature Not Verified By:JUSTICE SANJEEV
Digital Signed By:KUNAL SACHDEVA
MAGGU Signing Date:03.03.2022
Signing Date:04.03.2022 11:52:11 21:00
This file is digitally signed by PS
to HMJ Sanjeev Sachdeva.
8. Learned counsel for the petitioner relies on the decision of this
Court dated 26.07.2021 in W.P. (C) 3755/2021, titled Rahul Kumar
Vs. East Delhi Municipal Corporation of Delhi.
9. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent/Corporation
submits that the parking site was an authorized parking lot. However,
the contractor on 04.09.2020 surrendered the parking site on account
of lack of business. It is submitted that the parking site remained a
free parking from 04.09.2020 till 30.09.2021.
10. Respondent started operating the parking on the said site with
effect from 01.10.2021.
11. Learned counsel further submits that since the vehicle was an
abandoned vehicle, respondent/Corporation in terms of the directions
issued by judgment dated 25.09.2019 in W.P. (C) 2029/2018, titled
Umesh Sharma Vs. Government of NCT of Delhi was authorized to
remove the said abandoned vehicle from the public place and
consequently, the said vehicle was removed.
12. Learned counsel for respondent submits that charges levied for
unauthorized parking and for return of the vehicle after removal are in
accordance with the circular dated 29.08.2018.
13. Learned counsel submits that as on date the petitioner has to
pay approximately Rs.15 lakhs for return of the said vehicle.
Digitally Signed
Signature Not Verified By:JUSTICE SANJEEV
Digital Signed By:KUNAL SACHDEVA
MAGGU Signing Date:03.03.2022
Signing Date:04.03.2022 11:52:11 21:00
This file is digitally signed by PS
to HMJ Sanjeev Sachdeva.
14. Learned counsel for respondents submits that a Letters Patent
Appeal has been filed against the judgment in Rahul Kumar (supra)
being LPA No.382/2021. He, however, concedes that there is no
interim stay of the judgment by the Division Bench.
15. It may be noticed that the petitioner has placed on record a
parking slip to show that the vehicle was being parking in the said
parking lot on monthly basis.
16. The admitted case of the parties is that the place where the
vehicle was parked is an authorized parking lot and not a public street
or an abandoned place.
17. The case of the respondent as emanating from the counter
affidavit is that the earlier contractor had surrendered the parking lot
and thereafter, the parking remained free from 04.09.2020 till
30.09.2021 and, respondent started operating fastag parking with
effect from 01.10.2021.
18. The contention of the respondent that the vehicle was
abandoned and as such they are covered by the judgment of the
Division Bench of this Court in Umesh Sharma (supra) is contradicted
by the counter affidavit itself.
19. In the counter affidavit it is contended that verbal
communication was made to the owners, who had parked their
Digitally Signed
Signature Not Verified By:JUSTICE SANJEEV
Digital Signed By:KUNAL SACHDEVA
MAGGU Signing Date:03.03.2022
Signing Date:04.03.2022 11:52:11 21:00
This file is digitally signed by PS
to HMJ Sanjeev Sachdeva.
vehicles without authorized parking slips and were conveyed to
remove the vehicle from the site.
20. With regard to the petitioner, it is specifically stated that
petitioner was also conveyed to remove the vehicle which was parked
on the said site since a long time and whose fitness had also expired
on 25.08.2021 and was left abandoned in the parking area without any
authorized parking slip.
21. Case of the respondent is that they had conveyed to the
petitioner to remove the subject vehicle. However, the date when
petitioner was communicated to remove the vehicle and the manner in
which such information was conveyed is not borne out from the
affidavit.
22. Further, the fact that the respondents were aware as to who is
the owner of the vehicle, shows that the vehicle was not a vehicle
abandoned in a public place so as to be covered by the judgment in
Umesh Sharma (supra).
23. Petitioner has specifically stated that her husband, who was the
owner of the vehicle, had expired on 24.07.2021 and she had gone to
perform the last rites of her husband in her home town.
24. Further, it is noticed that as per the affidavit of respondents, the
parking site remained a free parking from 04.09.2020 till 30.09.2021.
Digitally Signed
Signature Not Verified By:JUSTICE SANJEEV
Digital Signed By:KUNAL SACHDEVA
MAGGU Signing Date:03.03.2022
Signing Date:04.03.2022 11:52:11 21:00
This file is digitally signed by PS
to HMJ Sanjeev Sachdeva.
There is no material placed on record by the respondent to show that
any public notice was placed in the parking lot or any communication
issued to the petitioner that the parking lot was no longer a free
parking place and charges would be levied for such parking.
25. As per the respondents, the vehicle was towed on 08.10.2021.
The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner had visited the office of
the respondent for release of the vehicle on 14.10.2021, which is
within six days from the vehicle being towed, however, the vehicle
was not released.
26. Insofar demand of approximately of Rs.15 lakhs as charges are
concerned, the same are sought to be claimed in terms of circular
dated 29.08.2018.
27. The said issue is squarely covered by the judgment of this Court
dated 26.07.2021 in Rahul Kumar (supra), wherein a similar circular
issued by East Delhi Municipal Corporation was considered by this
Court.
28. This Court has held that the said circular would be applicable
only in case there is menace of encroachment on municipal land by
various squatters, hawkers, shopkeepers, rehriwalah and does not have
any application insofar illegal parking of a vehicle on a public street
or municipal land is concerned.
Digitally Signed
Signature Not Verified By:JUSTICE SANJEEV
Digital Signed By:KUNAL SACHDEVA
MAGGU Signing Date:03.03.2022
Signing Date:04.03.2022 11:52:11 21:00
This file is digitally signed by PS
to HMJ Sanjeev Sachdeva.
29. As held in Rahul Kumar (supra), the wording of the Circular
relied upon by the Respondents as well as the various heads under
which impugned charges are sought to be recovered from the
petitioner show that they deal with illegal encroachment by
shopkeepers/hawkers who encroach upon public streets as well as
municipal land for the purposes of hawking or exposing for sale as
mentioned in Section 322 of the MCD Act and not to a case of alleged
illegal parking in a public place.
30. No circular has either been produced or relied upon by learned
counsel for the respondent which deals with imposition of any charges
for illegal parking on street/municipal land.
31. Further, admittedly no show cause notice has been given to the
petitioner requiring her to remove the vehicle from the said parking
lot.
32. The case of the petitioner is squarely covered by the judgment
in the case of Rahul Kumar (supra). Though it is mentioned that a
Letters Patent Appeal has been filed against the judgment in Rahul
Kumar (supra), however there is no stay of the said judgment by the
Division Bench.
33. Further, the contention of the respondent that vehicle had been
abandoned since the fitness had expired does not hold any merit for
the reason that Government of NCT of Delhi had by way of a general
Digitally Signed
Signature Not Verified By:JUSTICE SANJEEV
Digital Signed By:KUNAL SACHDEVA
MAGGU Signing Date:03.03.2022
Signing Date:04.03.2022 11:52:11 21:00
This file is digitally signed by PS
to HMJ Sanjeev Sachdeva.
notification extended validity of all documents whose validity was
expiring during the period of lockdown. Consequently, the validity of
fitness certificate would also stand extended in terms of the
notification of the Government of NCT of Delhi.
34. Clearly, in view of the above, the action of the respondent in
seizing the vehicle of the petitioner and raising a demand of about
Rs.15 lakhs on the petitioner for release of the vehicle cannot be
sustained.
35. In view of the above, the petition is allowed. The respondents
are directed to forthwith release the vehicle bearing registration
number DL1VC-0201 (RTV mini bus).
36. Petition is allowed in the above terms. In the facts and
circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.
SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J
MARCH 03, 2022
NA
Digitally Signed
Signature Not Verified By:JUSTICE SANJEEV
Digital Signed By:KUNAL SACHDEVA
MAGGU Signing Date:03.03.2022
Signing Date:04.03.2022 11:52:11 21:00
This file is digitally signed by PS
to HMJ Sanjeev Sachdeva.
