OKHLA INDUSTRIAL ESTATE ASSOCIATION Vs. M C D

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Issue notice. Mr. Ajay Arora, Advocate accepts notice on behalf of respondent No. 1, Mr. B.L. Wali, learned Counsel accepts notice on behalf of respondent No. 2. Issue notice to respondent No. 3 returnable on 11.8.2006. The second respondent had filed its counter affidavit dated 12th July, 2006. Learned Counsel for the respondent MCD produced a compilation of documents and original records on 20.7.2006. CM No. 8077/2006 (exemption) Allowed subject to just exceptions. CM No. 8076/2006 (Stay) With consent of Counsel for the parties, the application for interim relief was heard on 20th July, 2006. Learned Counsel for the MCD relied upon the compilation of documents and also produced the original records. After conclusion of hearing, he made the official records available to the Court, on 24th July, 2006. The second respondent had filed counter-affidavit on 12th July, 2006.

(2.) The applicant/petitioner in the writ proceeding is an Association comprising occupants/allottees of plots in the Okhla Industrial Estate, Phase-III (hereafter called 'the Colony'). Most of the plots have been constructed upon and consist of industrial units engaging in manufacturing activity, etc. The applicant/petitioner is aggrieved by the award of a contract to the respondent No. 2 [which is a registered parking contractor with the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (hereafter 'the MCD')]. The contract was apparently entered into pursuant to an offer letter dated 10.2.2006.

(3.) It is averred in the petition that the impugned parking contract amounts to regulation of roads by the contractor and would lead to violation of rights of members of the petitioner Association. It is claimed that if the second respondent is permitted to operate, it would amount impairing with the rights of individual plot holders to move freely, unhampered, on the internal roads of the colony besides creating obstructions in front of their premises. It is also claimed that the second respondent (hereafter 'the contractor') has claimed exorbitant amounts and in one case demanded the sum of Rs. 2,50,000/- per month from the plot holder/occupant.