Aslam Qureshi v. Union of India and Ors.

Delhi High Court · 20 Apr 2018 · 2018:DHC:8899
Rajiv Shakdher
W.P.(C) 3891/2018
2018:DHC:8899
administrative petition_allowed

AI Summary

The Delhi High Court directed authorities to consider the petitioner's request for extension of parking fee tender period due to demonetization and pass a reasoned order after hearing him.

Full Text
Translation output
$-46 HIGH COURT OF DELHI
DateofPronouncement: 20.04.2018
W.P.(C) 3891/2018 &CM APP No.15339/2018
ASLAM QURESHI Petitioner
Through : Mr. Nitesh Jain and Ms. Shruti Pandey, Advs.
VERSUS
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS; } , ..... Respondents
Through.;' ;Mr/^R'.Ki.'^ Mr. R.M.
CORAM: ^
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAW SHAKD^ipR RAJIV SHAKDHER. J (ORAL) / ;
CM APP No.15339/2018 ,^ i j.-', f'
JUDGMENT

1. Allowed subject to just e^j^ejptwhs.,.V:-• W.v.(0 3891/2018 ^7- 1,.^w vii ~T- 2. Issue notice to the respp^Se^^^|^;p^.j^i|pa accepts notice on behalfofthe respondents. In'view oMe order that Ipropose to pass, counsel for the respondents says that he does riiot wish to file acounter affidavit in the mairter:. -j £; ^

3. The substantive prayer made in the writ petition is as follows:- "(i). Issue a writ, order, or direction in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, directing the Respondents to extend the period of tender ofPetitioner by 45 days or grant 45 days tender to Petitionerfree ofcostfor collecting the Page 1 of[3] WP(C)No.3891/2018 2018:DHC:8899 parkingfeesfrom the vehicles onsite. "

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner says that representations were made to extend the period for collection of parking fee qua the vehicles in respect of land and area GLR Survey No. 319 (PART), infront ofAmar Singh Gate, Agra Cantt., Agra. 4.[1] In this regard, reference is made to representations dated 10.1.2017; 16.1.2017; 7.3.2017; 9.3.2017 and27.3.2017. 4.[2] To be noted, all these representations have the colour of a notice issued under Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC), which is served before filing a civil action against the government and/or a public officer.

5. Counsel for the petitioner says that while no direct response has been sent to the petitioner, insofar as respondent no.3 is concerned, he has sent a communication dated 20.1.2017 to respondent no.2.

6. Aperusal ofthis communication \Vould show that there is a reference to the fact thatthepetitioner has not^been able to collect parking fee due to denionetization and therefore, directions should be issued as to how to proceedfurther in the matter.

7. Having regard to the aforesaid, the respondents are directed to consider various representations preferred on the issue by the petitioner and to deliberate on his request as to whether the extension, as prayed, for collection of parking fee ought to be grantedto the petitioner. 7.[1] Let the needful bedone within five weeks ofthe receipt ofa copy of the order. If necessary, the concerned authority will WP(C)No.3891/2018 Page 2of[3] i summon thepetitioner and call for the relevant records. 7.[2] The concerned authority will pass a speaking order after hearing the petitioner; a copy of which would be served on the petitioner.

8. Thewritpetition isdisposed of inthe above terms.

APRIL 20,2018 Mk/cks RAJIV SHAKDHER, J