PRADEEP VERMA v. DDA

1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? ?-. To be referred to Reporter or not?

3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?.

I. Brief facts of the case, which have led to the filing of the presetrl a petition, are that on L[9].7.201-0 the respondent invited seaiec tenders for allotment of 31 parking sites at various locations in the city, besides kiosks, toilet blocks, etc, List of parking sites indicated the reserve licence fee against each parking site. The petitioner is stated to have participated in the tendering process and was declared successful and consequent thereto an allotment letter was issued to the petitioner on 6.10.2009. The petitioner i:. stated to have deposited the necessary amounts with tht respondent.

2. Grievance of the petitioner is that the complete area, required for parking I52 cars, has neither been disclosed in the tender documents nor handed over to the petitioner.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn the attention of the Court to the list of parking sites for the year 2006 wherein at item no.22, pertaining to the same parking site, the capacity was 2010:DHC:11292 response to an application made by the petitioner under Right to Information Act, petitioner has been informed that the present parking site, in question, has been tendered for a capacity of 152 cars and on this basis the reserve price was fixed.

4. Ms. Sangeeta Chandra, Advocate, enters appearance on behalf ot the respondent DDA and submits that the present petition would not be maintainable as it raises disputed questions of fact besides the terms of the tenders, which have been duly signed by the petitioner cannot be a subject matter in the present proceedings Counsel for the respondent DDA has drawn the attention of the court to the communication dated 18.8.2009, a copy of which ha: been filed at page 22 of the paper book, which bears the. signatures of the tenderer, according to which, the tenderer had agreed to the terms of the tender and also that the petitioner had inspected the site. Relevant portion of the communication dated 18.8.2009 reads as under: "l/We the undersigned being the tenderer as mentioned above, hereby apply to the DDA for allotment of the Parking Site described above in accordance with the terms and conditions oi the allotment by tender and under DDA, l/we have read anc understood terms & conditions of tender and herebr unequivocably accept the same. l/we shall pay the licence fee and furnish the required documents in the form prescribed ir, accordance with terms and conditions of tender. l/we have inspected the Parkino Site for which tender is beinq submitted. l/we shall peacefully vacate the Parking Site as and whei, called upon by DDA to do so without demur. Signature of Tenderer Dated 1g.g.2009 or on behalf of the applicant/tenderer Place Delhi"

5. Counsel for the DDA submits that once the petitioner hac inspected the parking site and thereafter participated in the, tender, it is not open for him at this stage to ask for variation ir' the terms of the tender. Counsel for the respondent DDA next submits that for the year 2006, the DDA had mentioned in the list of parking sites, the capacity of the parking site, in question, however, in the present tender this column was deleted. Counsei l with open eyes and upon inspecting the parking site. Counsel alsc submits that relying on the reply to the Right to Information query is misconceived as the same pertains to the tender of the year 2006 and does not pertain to the present tender. Reply to the query raised by the petitioner under the Right to lnformation dated 3.9.2009 reads as under:,. DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY LICENCE PROPERTY CELL No. F 1 ( M isc) RTI/LPC lO[9] I 432 From:- Dy. Director (LPC) To Sh. Pradeep Verma 54, Triveni Apartments 4-6, Paschim Vihar, Delhi. Subj: lnformation required under Rl'l Act-2005. Please refer to your lD No.3653 dt. 10,08.09 and cdef: receipt No.485745 dt 28.08.09 on the above mentioned subject In this regard, the parawise reply are as under:- 1 to 2 Copy of Measurement done by JE(JE) on 11.T[2].200e and RPD 7, on 23.09.06 is enclosed.

4 As per the tender opened on 27.06.06 the capacit;. of site is 152 number of cars on which basis the reserve prize was divided alongwith the area. (K.C. Surender) Dy. Director (LPC) DDA" Learned counsel for the petitioner, however, relies upon the office notings of the file, according to which, the capacity of the vehicles was not changed between the year 2006 to 2009. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and also perused the various annexures filed along with the writ petition. In this case, pursuant to an advertisement appearing in the newspaper, inviting sealed tender for allotment of 31 parking sites at various locations in the city, the petitioner participated in the tendering Dated:- 3.9.09

6.

7. letter was issued to him. Grievance of the petitioner is that the respondent has failed to hand over the complete area for parking 152 cars. Admittedly, the tender document is silent with regard to the capacity of parking. No doubt for the year 2006, for the same parking site, the DDA had indicated the capacity of I52 cars, however, in the list of authorized parking sites for the year 2009 the capacity for the number of cars has not been mentioned. The communication dated 18.8.2009, which has duly been signed b1' the petitioner, which has reproduced above, clearly shows that he had accepted the terms and conditions of the tender and he had inspected the site, for which the tender was being submitted. At this stage, for the petitioner to raise a dispute that the tender document did not mention the capacity of cars cannot be permitted. Even otherwise, a writ is not a remedy for adjudicating such disputes, especially, when an alternate and equally' efficacious remedy is open to the petitioner. Further, it is well settled that a writ in the nature of mandamus would not be maintainable for enforcing the terms and conditions of a contraci more so when the issue does not involve any public element neither malafides nor ulterior motives have been attributed to the actions of the DDA. I find that in the list of parking sites for the year 2009 capacity has not been mentioned in the list and the petitioner decided to participated in the tender. In view of this, the Court cannot re-write the terms of contract entered into between the parties. Accordingly, lfind no merit in the present petition, the same is dismissed.

9. Dismissed, in view of the orders passed in the writ petition. I April 1.6, 2OLO 'msr" _zs gh,- -' - G.S. S|STAN|, J.