Delhi High Court - Orders
M/S Pacific Development Corpn Ltd vs Delhi Metro Rail Corporation And Anr on 17 September, 2021
Author: Vipin Sanghi
Bench: Vipin Sanghi, Jasmeet Singh
$~10.
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 10205/2021
M/S PACIFIC DEVELOPMENT CORPN LTD ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Dayan Krishnan, Sr. Adv. with
Mr. Jitender Kumar and Mr. Sukrit,
Advocates.
versus
DELHI METRO RAIL CORPORATION AND ANR..... Respondent
Through: Ms. Vibha Mahajan Seth, Advocate
for DMRC.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIPIN SANGHI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASMEET SINGH
ORDER
% 17.09.2021 CM APPL. 31478/2021 Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions. The application stands disposed of.
W.P.(C) 10205/2021 & CM APPL. 31477/2021 The gravamen of the dispute raised in this petition is that the respondent DMRC has permitted respondent No.2 M/S Parsvnath Developers Limited (PDL) to occupy, and build upon an area which was, according to the petitioner was earmarked for parking. According to the petitioner, the said parking was available for the benefit of the commuters of the DMRC, as well as for those who used the facilities created by the Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:BHUPINDER SINGH ROHELLA Signing Date:17.09.2021 18:22:03 petitioner and respondent No.2/ PDL. In this regard, the petitioner places reliance on the plan sanctioned by the DDA in favour of respondent No.2 in the year 2018.
Ms. Vibha Mahajan Seth, Advocate, who appears for the respondent DMRC on advance notice disputes this claim of the petitioner, and states that the entire area was allotted to respondent No.2 in the year 2007 itself, which also included the area shown as parking in the sanction plan. She submits that on account of bringing into force of the new Master Plan, the ground coverage increased and respondent No.2 was, therefore, entitled to exploit the same in terms of the Concession Agreement itself upon payment of additional charges. She submits that the Sanction Plan in favour of respondent No.2 was revised by the DDA on 02.05.2019.
At this stage, Mr. Krishnan states that he would like to rely on more relevant documents, and place them on record to advance his submissions.
At his request, adjourned to 22.10.2021. It is made clear that we have neither issued notice in the matter, nor passed any interim orders.
VIPIN SANGHI, J JASMEET SINGH, J SEPTEMBER 17, 2021 N.Khanna Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:BHUPINDER SINGH ROHELLA Signing Date:17.09.2021 18:22:03