GIRIRAJ ENTERPRISES v. MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI

The present writ petition has been filed seeking setting aside of the order dated 13th August, 2025 issued by respondent no.3/Assistant Commissioner, MCD, by which the allotment of the parking site at Red Fort Metro Station Parking, City SP Zone awarded to the petitioner has been cancelled. Further, the security deposit and the FDR submitted by the petitioner has been forfeited and the petitioner has been blacklisted. Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:AANCHAL TAGGAR Signing Date:06.05.2026 12:22:30 W.P.(C) 12493/2025

Brief facts relevant for deciding the present writ petition are set out below.

On 30th August, 2024, respondents invited E-bids from eligible bidders for allotment of authorized surface parking sites at various locations. One of the parking sites offered was at ‘Red Fort Metro Station Gate No.1, 2, 3 and 4’ (‘subject parking site’). The Reserved Monthly License Fee was fixed at Rs.59,000/-, whereas the EMD was fixed for a sum of Rs.1,06,200/-.

On 26th September, 2024, the petitioner submitted its comprehensive bid for a monthly license fee of Rs.7,61,000/- for the allotment of the subject parking site. The bid of the petitioner was admitted by the respondents on 18th November, 2024.

On 22nd November, 2024, a communication was sent by the respondents to the petitioner, wherein it was stated that the aforesaid bid by the petitioner was accepted and the subject parking site was offered to the petitioner for a period of three years.

On 29th November, 2024, the petitioner deposited the requisite security deposit for an amount of Rs.22,83,000/- with the respondents in accordance with the terms and conditions of the e-tender. Subsequently, the petitioner also deposited a sum of Rs.29,37,815/- towards the advance monthly license fee for a period of four months.

Pursuant thereto, the petitioner was handed over the possession of the subject parking site on 16th December, 2024.

The Traffic Police issued a communication dated 21st February, 2025 to MCD seeking cancellation of the license of parking area at the Red Fort Metro Gate No.4 as the same was causing traffic congestion in the area. On 7th May, 2025, the MCD sent a communication to the Traffic Police stating that MCD Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:AANCHAL TAGGAR Signing Date:06.05.2026 12:22:30 W.P.(C) 12493/2025 had allotted the parking site only for Gate No.1 and Gate No.2 of the subject parking site. Therefore, the parking site being operated at Gate No.3 and 4 is unauthorized.

A Show Cause Notice dated 13th May, 2025 was issued by MCD to the petitioner stating that the petitioner was covering parking space beyond the allotted parking area and accordingly, the petitioner was called to pay a penalty of Rs.1,14,115/-.

A subsequent Show Cause Notice was issued on 30th May, 2025, wherein the petitioner was called to pay outstanding amounts towards monthly license fees of Rs.25,33,296/-. The aforesaid notice also proposed cancellation of the contract, forfeiture of security deposit and blacklisting of the petitioner.

The aforesaid Show Cause Notices were challenged by the petitioner by way of Writ Petition, being W.P.(C) 9024/2025, before this Court. The said writ petition was disposed of vide order dated 4th July, 2025, directing the petitioner to file a reply to the aforesaid Show Cause Notice and directing respondents/MCD to decide the Show Cause Notice after considering the reply filed by the petitioner granting opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner. The relevant observations of the said order are set out below:- “12. Upon the petitioner filing the reply to the said Show Cause Notices, the respondent no. 1-MCD shall consider the reply of the petitioner and also grant an opportunity of personal hearing.

13. In case, the respondent no. 1-MCD arrives at a conclusion that the petitioner is unable to operate the full area of the parking space allotted to it, the respondent no. 1-MCD shall consider giving proportionate remission to the petitioner, in terms of its policy.

14. Needless to state, during the pendency of the proceedings before the MCD pertaining to the Show Cause Notices issued by the MCD, no coercive action shall be taken against the petitioner. Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:AANCHAL TAGGAR Signing Date:06.05.2026 12:22:30 W.P.(C) 12493/2025

15. At this stage, this Court notes the submissions of learned counsel appearing for the respondent that the petitioner was handed over the parking site in January, 2025, however, till date the petitioner has not paid any amount. learned counsel appearing for the 16. Responding to the same, petitioner submits that a sum of Rs. 4,00,000/- (Rupees Four Lakh) has been deposited recently.

17. In view of the submissions made before this Court, it is directed that a sum of Rs. 10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Lakh) shall be deposited by the petitioner on account, with the respondent no. 1-MCD within a period of one week from today.”

Pursuant thereto, the petitioner filed a reply dated 14th July, 2025 to the Show Cause Notice dated 30th May, 2025.

The impugned order was passed by MCD on 13th August, 2025. For the sake of convenience, the same is set out below:- Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:AANCHAL TAGGAR Signing Date:06.05.2026 12:22:30 W.P.(C) 12493/2025

The petitioner has challenged the aforesaid impugned order in the present writ petition. This Court vide order dated 19th August, 2025, stayed the operation of the impugned order, subject to the petitioner depositing an additional amount of Rs.10,00,000/- with the MCD within two weeks therefrom. The petitioner complied with the said direction by depositing the requisite amount, and accordingly, the operation of the impugned order has remained stayed.

The main ground of challenge raised by the petitioner is that the contract was awarded in favour of the petitioner for all four gates of the Red Fort Metro Station, i.e. Gate Nos. 1 to 4. However, respondents permitted the petitioner to operate only at two gates, i.e. Gate Nos.1 and 2.

Counsel for the petitioner submits that it is for the first time in the counter affidavit that the respondents have raised the plea that respondents had awarded the parking site only in the stretch covering Gate Nos.1 and 2. This plea was never taken in any of the earlier communications. A perusal of the e-tender documents which gives a list of parking sites, offer letter dated 24th November, 2024 and the possession letter dated 16th December, 2024, clearly show that the petitioner was to be given all four gates of the parking site. Therefore, the contention of the respondents that the petitioner only required to be given parking site at Gate Nos.1 and 2 is completely contrary to the record. It is further contended on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner cannot be charged monthly license fees for the parking site covering four gates, i.e. Gate Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 4 when the petitioner was permitted to operate only at the two gates.

It is further submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the impugned order proceeds to blacklist the petitioner in a completely unlawful manner. In Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:AANCHAL TAGGAR Signing Date:06.05.2026 12:22:30 W.P.(C) 12493/2025 this regard, reference is placed on the judgments of the Supreme Court in Eurasian Equipment v. State of West Bengal1 and B.S.N. Joshi & Sons v. Nair Coal Services2.

In the reply affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents/MCD, it is stated that the petitioner was allotted only Gate Nos.1 and 2 of the subject parking site. This is evident from the site map of the subject parking site which was counter signed by the petitioner. The plea of not handing over the sites at Gate Nos. 3 and 4 is clearly an afterthought which was raised much after the acceptance of possession. The petitioner’s conduct shows repeated and independent breaches, such as overcharging and unauthorized occupation. Accordingly, the respondents were fully justified in cancelling the contract of the petitioner.

Mr Tushar Sannu, standing counsel appearing on behalf of MCD, submits that even though the parking site was referred to in the tender document as ‘Metro Red Fort Gate no. 1, 2, 3 and 4’, the parking was allotted only between Gate Nos.1 and 2. The parking between Gate Nos. 3 and 4 was not a part of the subject parking site. The approved site map of the subject parking site was annexed to the allotment letter issued by the respondents in favour of the petitioner, which confirms that only Gate Nos.1 and 2 are part of the licensed area for operation of the subject parking site. The said site map was counter signed by the petitioner.

The petitioner accepted the aforesaid allotment without any protest. The petitioner did not object at the time of taking over the possession of the subject parking site on 16th December, 2024. Therefore, the petitioner is