Mukesh Kumar Singla & ORS. v. Delhi Development Authority & ORS.

$~131 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of Decision: 26th November, 2024 + W.P.(C) 16361/2024& CM APPL. 69025-69026/2024 MUKESH KUMAR SINGLA & ORS.

.....Petitioner Through:

Mr. Ashutosh Rana with Mr. Dhruv Chatrath, Advocates.

versus DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY & ORS.

.....Respondent Through:

Ms. Manika Tripathy, SC with Mr.

Rony John, Advocates for DDA.

Mr. Anuj Aggarwal, ASC with Mr.

Yash Upadhyay and Mr. Siddhant Dutt, Advocates.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ JAIN J U D G M E N T (oral) 1.

Petitioner seeks to set aside and quash the notification bearing No. 03/QGC/DDA/2024-25 for engaging catering agencies for parties/banquets in sports complex of DDA.

2.

The petitioners are members of Rashtriya Swabhimaan Khel Parisar, Pitampura, Delhi.

3.

It has been averred by them that the Sports Complex of Pitampura was inaugurated in 1999 and they are active members of the above said Sports Complex. It is submitted that despite the fact that there is lack of infrastructure, the respondent No. 1 has rather invited bids for engaging professional catering agencies for Banquets/party at various sport complexes W.P.(C) 16361/2024 1 By:SONIA THAPLIYAL 11:14:54

of DDA, including that of Pitampura. It is submitted that such act of DDA amounts to misuse of the land for a non-sporting/commercial activity. 4.

Learned counsel for respondent Authority appears on advance notice and submits that in a virtually identical situation, learned Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 18.11.2024 passed in W.P.(C) 15909/2024 had directed the representation of the petitioner therein qua construction of Banquet Hall to be decided, by way of reasoned order, within two weeks. 5.

A copy of said order was also shown during course of the arguments. 6.

Mr. Katyal, learned Standing Counsel for respondent No. 1 submits that since the issue is almost the same, DDA can always consider the present writ petition as a representation and dispose it of in a time-bound manner. 7.

Learned counsel for petitioner submits that, without prejudice to his rights and contentions, he would have no objection to the above said proposal. 8.

Accordingly, the present petition is disposed of in aforesaid terms. The present writ petition is thus treated as a representation and the Vice-Chairman, DDA is requested to decide the same by passing a speaking and reasoned order within two weeks from today. 9.

Needless to say that all the contentions of the petitioners have been left open and in case the petitioner is aggrieved by the outcome of the said representation, he would be permitted to take recourse to action as permissible under law.

10.

The petition stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms. (MANOJ JAIN) JUDGE NOVEMBER 26, 2024/sw W.P.(C) 16361/2024 2 By:SONIA THAPLIYAL 11:14:54