Delhi High Court - Orders
M/S. Kuldip Tourist Taxi Service vs Adg, Doordarshan Kendra & Anr on 17 February, 2022
Author: Najmi Waziri
Bench: Najmi Waziri
$~37 (1)
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CONT.CAS(C) 193/2022
M/S. KULDIP TOURIST TAXI SERVICE ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr Pawanjit Singh Bindra, Senior
Advocate with Mr Naunidh S. Arora,
Mr Sumit Kumar Batra, Mr Mike
Desai and Mr Manish Khurana,
Advocates.
versus
ADG, DOORDARSHAN KENDRA & ANR. ..... Respondents
Through: Ms Vertika Sharma, Advocate.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAJMI WAZIRI
ORDER
% 17.02.2022 The hearing was conducted through video conferencing. CM APPL. 8724/2022 (exemption)
1. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
2. The application stands disposed-off. CONT.CAS(C) 193/2022
3. The learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner states that on 05.01.2022, a Division Bench of this court, in W.P. (C) No.168/2022 had passed the following interim directions:
"...11. In these circumstances, we are inclined to restrain the respondents from engaging third party vendors for providing cab and taxi hire services in relation to respondent No.1 i.e. Doordarshan Kendra, Delhi without a transparent process of e- tendering in terms of GFR, 2017.
12. Respondents are, however, free to continue to avail of the services of the petitioner, as they have been doing in the past till the new contractor is appointed in a transparent manner..."Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:KAMLESH KUMAR Signing Date:19.02.2022 12:02:43
4. The interim order was confirmed, by the final order dated 17.01.2022, which inter alia, directed as under:
"...31. We, therefore, allow the petition, and direct the respondents not to avail of the services of M/s City Cabs Co. or any other private contractor for providing vehicles required by DDK, Delhi till DDK, Delhi appoints a fresh contractor through the tendering process. In case, DDK, Delhi requires any vehicles on hire, they may avail of the services of the petitioner till such time as the new service provider is selected through a transparent tendering process. It goes without saying that the petitioner would continue to provide its services as before. The decision taken by the respondents not to avail of the services of the petitioner after 31.12.2021 having been taken behind the petitioner‟s back is quashed. We, however, permit the respondents to avail of the services of M/s City Cabs Co. for the Republic Day celebration and Beating Retreat for the reasons also noticed hereinabove..."
5. The learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner submits that despite the aforesaid directions, the respondents have continued to avail services of other transport service providers, in breach of the aforesaid directions.
6. The learned counsel for the respondents submits that an SLP has been preferred by the respondents.
7. Be that as it may, in view of the fact that the aforesaid orders have neither been stayed nor altered thus far, the court prima facie finds that the respondents have committed contempt of court.
8. Accordingly, issue notice to the respondents to show cause why contempt proceedings be not initiated against him under section 2(b) Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:KAMLESH KUMAR Signing Date:19.02.2022 12:02:43 and 12 of the Contempt Of Courts Act, 1971. Notice is accepted by the learned counsel named above for the respondents. Compliance affidavit/reply be filed in four weeks. Rejoinder thereto, if any, be filed before the next date.
9. Renotify on 07.07.2022.
10.The order be uploaded on the website forthwith.
NAJMI WAZIRI, J FEBRUARY 17, 2022/rd Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:KAMLESH KUMAR Signing Date:19.02.2022 12:02:43