Parking lease by MCD on pvt land stayed

Saturday, November 15, 2008
timesofindia.indiatimes.com

The Delhi High Court has stayed an award of a parking contract to a private contractor by MCD after the owner of the land challenged it
before HC.

A division bench of HC stayed the license awarded by MCD in Udyog Nagar Industrial Area. The land belongs to a co-operative society which alleged that this action of MCD was illegal as the road and adjoining streets were not ''public streets'' but private ones.

Seeking a stay through lawyer Rakesh Makhija, "Manufacturers Co-operative Ind Estate Ltd'' argued before HC that they had only roped in MCD for maintenance of roads inside their industrial complex but the civic agency went ahead and leased out a parking award to a private player who has nothing to do with the society.

Enumerating the dates, the society informed the court that MCD was brought into the picture in 1975 for simple maintenance of roads for which the members paid a fixed sum to the agency. However, in October this year, members were surprised to see a private contractor who turned up and demanded money from car owners. He waived a contract granted by MCD to bolster his claims and said it was a public street with MCD as its owner and therefore, people have to cough up parking fee. the contractor also informed members that he was shelling out a monthly amount to MCD in return for this license.

The members rushed to court seeking relief, saying they had been reduced to paying money for parking vehicles on their own land. They also alleged that MCD didn't even bother to inform the society members that it had brought in a private contractor to oversee parking.

MCD on its part, claimed that the roads belonged to it by virtue of society transferring maintenance to it. The civic agency defended its decision, arguing the discretion remained with MCD on what to do with this road and adjoining area which was being maintained by it.

When the case was heard first by a single judge, he refused to stay the contract and jointly sought a response from the civic agency, prompting the petitioners to again move HC before a division bench. They argued that without an interim stay, they were being forced to pay money for parking inside the area.