Full Text
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
JUDGMENT
PLANET ADVERTISING PVT. LTD. ..... Petitioner
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner : Mr. Kapil Sibal, Mr. G.Tushar Rao, Senior Advocates with
Mr. Kunal Kalra, Advocate.
For the Respondents : Ms. Mini Pushkarna, Standing Counsel, North DMC with
Ms. Latika Malhotra and Ms. Khushboo Nahar, Advocates.
1. The hearing was conducted through video conferencing.
SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J.
2. Petitioner impugns show cause notice dated 22.07.2021 whereby a notice has been issued to the petitioner on the ground that none of the cycle shelters allotted to the petitioners are working and there are no attendants present to aid or held the users.
3. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the very basis of the show cause notice is incorrect and there is no 2021:DHC:2458 material with the respondent to hold that the cycle shelters are not functional.
4. Learned Senior Counsel submits that the whole system is a mobile application based system where the user does not need help of an attendant and needs to only book the cycle online and pick it up from any of the shelters and drop it later at any of the shelters. The payment is also deducted online through the online application.
5. Further it is contended that there is substantial digital date to show that the cycle shelters are operational and are being extensively used. Petitioners have also placed on record over e-mail of the Court Master, the data of the usage of the application.
6. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submits that the data is real time and is also available for the preceding period from the commencement of operation. He further submits that this data was also furnished to the respondent on 10.08.2021.
7. Further learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submits that the basis of the show cause notice as well as cancellation order dated 11.08.2021 that the cycle shelters are not operational and the cycles are not being used is incorrect.
8. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent-Corporation objects to the maintainability of the petition on the ground that the agreement is terminable and there is also an arbitration clause. She further submits that on 10.08.2021 the agreement has been terminated and the copy of the order dated 11.08.2021 has been e-mailed to the
9. Prima facie a look at the data that has been submitted by the petitioner for the period 01.01.2021 till 31.07.2021 shows as many as 6261 entries of cycles having been used for various durations. This is an average of 900 entries per month and also includes the lockdown period.
10. Perusal of the cancellation order dated 11.08.2021 shows that a hearing was granted to the petitioner, however, the order merely records that during hearing the representative of the petitioner had appeared and had admitted to deficiencies and shortcomings in carrying out the allotted work and a reply was submitted but the same was not found satisfactory.
11. The order does not record any finding with regard to the usage of the cycle shelters.
12. Learned counsel for the respondent disputes that the usage data was furnished to the respondent, however she, without prejudice, submits that respondents are willing to take a fresh look at the matter in view of the fresh data furnished and pass a fresh order.
13. In view of the above, order dated 11.08.2021 cancelling the contract is set aside and the matter is remitted to the Commissioner (North MCD) for having a fresh look at the matter and to pass a fresh speaking order after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.
14. The petitioner/authorized representative shall appear before Commissioner (North MCD) on 18.08.2021 at 11.00 a.m. The petitioner or authorized representative shall produce entire data in a digital from and if possible show a demonstration to the Commissioner (North MCD) of the online application and its usage.
15. Thereafter, the Commissioner (North MCD) shall pass a fresh speaking order in accordance with law. It is clarified that this is without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the parties and also without expressing any opinion on the objections of the respondent about the maintainability of the writ petition in the facts and circumstances of the case. Said issue is left open.
16. The petition is disposed of in the above terms.
17. Copy of the order be uploaded on the High Court website and be also forwarded to learned counsels through email by the Court Master.
AUGUST 13, 2021/‘rs’ SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J