W.P.(C)/7857/2017 of RAKESH KUMAR JHA Vs NORTH DELHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI+W.P.(C) 7857/2017

RAKESH KUMAR JHA

..... Petitioner

ThroughMr. P.S. Rana, Mr. Ratnesh Kant, Mr.Jitendra Kumar Jha, Ms. Disha Passiand Mr. Amit Prakash, Advs.Jitendra Kumar Jha, Ms. Disha Passiand Mr. Amit Prakash, Advs.

versus

NORTH DELHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION ..... Respondent

ThroughMs.MiniPushkarna,StandingCounsel, Ms. Vasundhara Nayyar andMs.Anushruti,Advs.withMr.Ashwini Mathur, JLO, RP Cell andMr. Sanjay Ray, SSA, RP Cell, NorthDMC.Counsel, Ms. Vasundhara Nayyar andMs.Anushruti,Advs.withMr.Ashwini Mathur, JLO, RP Cell andMr. Sanjay Ray, SSA, RP Cell, NorthDMC.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A. K. CHAWLAO R R%07.09.2017

Matter relates to the parking site lying allotted to the petitionerearlier. Ld. counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner isbeing denied participation in the fresh auction/bidding of the parkingsite, on account of alleged arrears of dues on the previous allotment.

As per the status report filed on behalf of the respondent, whichhas come to be handed over during the course of hearing, there areoutstanding arrears to the tune of Rs.37,51,604/- towards the licencefee payable over the period from February, 2015 till September, 2017.Ld. counsel for the petitioner strenuously contends that the parkingsite actually available to the petitioner was only about 20%, inasmuch

as, 80% of it was occupied by others, to the very knowledge of therespondent.Now, when the matter has been taken up in the post-lunch session and the subject file is available with Ms. Pushkarna, ld.standing counsel for the respondent, it emerges that the record of therespondent itself records that only 19% of the parking site wasactually available to the petitioner and representations made by thepetitioner since March, 2015 and thereafter, have not yet beendecided, is conceded to on behalf of the respondent. Strange are theways, in which the respondent is dealing with its affairs and theconcernedofficers/officialsaredischargingtheirstatutoryduties/obligations.Ld. counsel for the petitioner submits that theamount already deposited by the petitioner with the respondent is inexcess of 20% of actually due and payable by the petitioner under thesubject contract.Ms. Pushkarna, on instructions, submits that theamounts deposited by the petitioner towards the licence fee fall 2%less/short of 20% and therefore, to arrive at figure @ 20% towardslicence fee, the shortfall would be of about Rs.2,00,000/- only.

Keeping in view the totality of the facts and circumstances, it isdirected that the respondent shall issue No Objection Certificate to thepetitioner to enable him to participate in the bid scheduled fortomorrow, and, within five days from today, the petitioner shalldeposit with the respondent sum of Rs.2,00,000/-, subject to theadjustments being made on the decision taken on the representationsof the petitioner, within two months from today.In the event, thepetitioner fails to deposit sum of Rs.2,00,000/- within five daysfromtoday,therespondentshallbeatlibertytonotto

consider/process the bid of the petitioner any further.Respondentshall also be at liberty to take any further action(s), as may berequired under the laws/bye-laws or the terms of offer or contract onthe decision taken on merits on the representations of the petitionerlying pending with it. Petition stands disposed off accordingly.

Dasti under the signatures of the Court Master.

A. K. CHAWLA, J

SEPTEMBER 07, 2017rc