38. s- * r IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI W.P.(C) 624312010 & CM No.12360 12010 (for stay). iWs AEROASTRAL AIR SERVICES (P) LIMITED ..... Petitioner Through: N{r. T.K. Ganju, Sr. Advocate with Mr. B.L. Wali. Advocate. MCD VETSUS Tlu'ough: Ms. Mini pushkarn4 ;ff:t#ftT Mr. Anil Kurnar, License Inspector. AND 40. + W.P.(C) 6247/2010 & CM No.12364 /2010 (for interirn relief). IWs AERoASTRAL AIR SERVICES (P) LIMITED ..... petitioner Tlu'ough: Mr. T.K. Ganju, Sr. Advocate with Mr. B.L. Wali, Advocate. versus MCD .... Respondent Through: Ms. Mini Pushkarn4 Advocate with Mr. Anil Kurnar, License Inspector. . AND 43. + W.P.(C) 625312010 & CM No.12370 12010 (for stay). IWs AERoASTRAL AIR SERVICES PVT. LIMITED ..... peritioner MCD Tll'ough: Mr. T.K. Garuu, Sr. Advocate with Mr. B.L. Wali. Advocate. versus Through: Ms. Mini pushkarn4 ;.ff:ir"."ftil Mr. Anil Kumar', License Inspector. rt tl r^ Digitally Signed By:AMULYA Certify that the digital file and physical file have been compared and the digital data is as per the physical file and no page is missing. Signature Not Verified o CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJTV SAIIAI ENDLAW ORDER 1s.09.2010 1. The petitioner was allotted tlu'ee parking sites subject rnatter of these three petitions by the respondent MCD, in an open tender. The contention of the petitioner is that inpsite of being purportedly put into possession of the parking sites, it was unable to operate any of thern for diverse reasons stated in each of the petitions. The senior counsel for the petitioner has with reference to W.P.(C) No.6253 /2010 also demonst'ated as to how the parking site subject matter of that petition was entailed in litigation preventing the petitioner fi'orn using the same. 2. The petitioner by these petitions seeks direction to the respondent MCD to allot altemate parking sites to the petitioner and in the alternative to refund the amounts deposited by the petitioner with respect to each of the parking sites together with interest, darnages etc. thereon. 3. The counsel for the respondent MCD appearing on advance notice on instructions states that the respondent MCD will allot the alternate parking sites in lieu of the three parking sites subject rnatter of these petitions to the petitioner, but all in Civil Lines Zone. The senior counsel for the petitioner has contended that while two of the parking sites were in Civil Lines Zone, the third was in the Central Zone and the respondent MCD has proposal for reviving the said parking site. It is contended that the cornrnercial prospects of the parking site in the Cent al, Zone would be much lnore than the cornrneicial prospectus of the parking site in the Civil Lines Zone. I e a I 4. However after sorne hearing, the senior counsel for the petitioner on instructions is agreeable to the allotrnent of all ttu'ee parking sites in the Civil Lines Zone only but contends that the petitioner be cornpensated for the less viable parking site in Civil Lines Zone in lieu of third parking site in the Central Zone by allof,nent of better parking sites in the Civil Lines Zone. The petitioner is given liberry to approach the respondent MCD in this regald. 5. Accepting the aforesaid contentions and binding the parties thereto, the petitions are disposed of. The respondent MCD to rnake allotnent of the alternate palking sites to the petitioner within four weeks hereof. No order as to costs. Copy of this order be given dqsit. RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW.J SEPTEMBER Pp... --frhcn Esqgf to' uls rrt P A*i'r''.4 D T