2to9. 3 $- r+ rrF - *|NTHEH|GHcouRToFDELH|ATNEWDELH| tzl + w.P.(C) 698/2010 KUNAL FOOD PRODUCTS PW.LTD. ..... PCtitiONCT ffrrouglr: Mr. M'L' Lahoty' Mr, Paban K' Sharma and Ms. Gargi Bhatta Bhurali' Advs' VCTSUS i' ' DELHI DEVELOPMENT AurHoRlrY &ANR' ""' Respondents wtr. S't-. Gupta, Adv' for respondent no'2' L3I ;+ W.P.(C) 242412010 KUNAL FOOD PRODUCTS PVT LTD .'... PCtitiONCT Through : Mr' AjaY Kumar' Adv' ' VCTSUS DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY ..... RCSPONdCNT fhrough : Mr' Ajay Verma' Adv' for the DDA' t'- t4I + w.P.(C) 2426l2oto i F F IND'GREEN INTERNATI.NAL "" Petitioner l-hrough : Mr. AjaY Kumar, Advs' versus DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY .... ' RCSPONdCNT ifrrough : Mr. Ajay Verma, Adv' for the DDA' 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 Isl + w.P.(c) 2428|2OLO SS INFRASTUCTURE Through : Mr. AjaY Kumar, Advs' VCTSUS t ..... Petitioner DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY ""' Respondent Through : Mr. Ajay Verma, Adv' for the DDA' I6I + w.P.(c) 2454120t0 MAHAGUN HOTEL PVT LTD Through : Mr. and ..... Petitioner M.L. LahotY, Mr. Paban K. Sharma Ms. Gargi Bhatta Bhurali, Advs' -t\ / 177 + W.P.(C) 24sslzoL0 S CHAND & CO LTD Through : VCTSUS DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY '.'.. RCSPONdCNT Through : Mr. Ajay Verma, Adv' for the DDA' ..... Petitioner Mr. M.L. Lahoty, Mr. Paban K. Sharma and Ms. Gargi Bhatta Bhurali, Advs' Ir: versus DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY "... RCSPONdCNT Through : Mr. Ajay Verma, Adv' for the DDA' w.p.(c) 698/2010, w.P.(c) 242 4l2OrO, W.P.(Cl 242612010' w.p.ii\ )qzla tzo t o, w.P.(c) 24s 4t2oro, w.P'(c) 24ssl2010' w.p.ic) zqsa?olo and w'P.(c) 2457 lzolo t8I+ w.P.(c) 24s6120L0 SPIRIT HOTEL & RESORT Through : Mr. M.L. and Ms. w.P.(c) 24s7l2oto D.G.ESTATE PW.LTD Through : / l' Lahoty, Mr. Paba; ':tiL"fi"i Gargi -ghatta Bhurali, Advs' IeI + versus DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY ..... RCSPONdCNT fhrough : Mr' Ajay Verma' Adv' for the DDA' ..... Petitioner Mr. M.L. Lahoty, Mr. Paban K' Sharma unO Ut. Gargi Bhatta Bhurali, Advs' VETSUS DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY ""' RCSPONdCNT ff.iorgh : Mr' Ajay Verma' Adv' for the DDA' CORAM: HON'BLE MR. rusTlcE G.S'SISTANI ORDER 26-O4.20LO 1. This is a second round of litigation between the petitioners and. the respondent DDA. Petitioners have participated in an auction conducted by the DDA for construction of hotels primarily for the forthcomingCommonwea|thGameS,20l.0.Petitionersare aggrieved by the rejection of the representations made by them to the DDA seeking extension of time in completing the hotel projects for various reasons' w.P.(c) 698/2010, w.P.(C) 2424t20ro, w'P'(c) 242612.010' w:b.ici t;t'8ltoib, w.i.tbt zqsqtzoto,-w'P'(c) 24ssl2010' w.p.ici zqsa?oto and w'P.(c) 24571201'0 t J 5t) ,) a4-- 2. Counsel for the petitioners submit that in the first round of litigation this court has disposed of the writ petition with a direction to the DDA to consider the representation of the petitioners and grant them a personal hearing before passing a reasoned order. counsel further submits that although the representationhasbeenconsideredandrejectedbytheDDAbut no personal hearing was granted to the petitioners to enable them to explain their case in detail' The petitioners have approached this court again under the threat of encashing of performance guarantees. Counsel a|so submits that, in fact, the petitioners have been shocked at the order of rejection in view of , \ the fact that a meeting was held between the petitioners and the ti DDA on 1g.2.2010 wherein after considering various constraints the DDA has taken a specific assurance from all the hoteliers including the petitioners herein that the hotel project would positively be completed by May / June, 2010, and thereby leave enoughperiodofcushionofalmostfourmonthsbeforethe commonwealth Games, 20L0. counsel next submits that having reached this understanding it was totally unfair and uncalled for .bytheDDAtoissuerejectionorderandthreatenencashmentof It performance security. Counsel for petitioner has also drawn the attention of the court to page 96 of the paper book with regard tominutesofthemeetingdatedt2.2,2o:I0whereinDDAhad agreedtocompletewatersupplywork,seweragework,Drain work, Roads and electricity by the end of March' w. P. (c) 6e 8/2 o 10, w. P. (c ) 242 4 t zorlo, w'P]9',,^?!V913.9t0' ,ilp'.iEi ) q/s io i b, w. i' I c l z qs q no:o, w' P' ( c ) 2 4s s /2 0 1 0' w.p.ie\ zqsai p0l-0 and w.P.(c) 2457 l2or0 r'\ t/- /A ( \-) 3. Mr. Ajay Verma, Advocate, enters appearance on behalf of the respondent/DDA in all the writ petitions and Mr. S.L. Gupta, Advocate, enters appearance on behalf of respondent no.2/SBl in W.P.(C)No.69812010, on an advance copy. 4. Mr. Ajay Verma, learned counsel for the DDA submits that the parties are governed by the Arbitration Clause and the writ petition would not be a proper remedy in view thereof. 5. After some hearing in the matter, learned counsel for the ? petitioners, on instructions, wish to withdraw the present writ t . petitions, to enable the petitioners to seek appropriate remedy, as may be available to them in accordance with law. /. 6. Accordingly, writ petitions and all pending applications are t' dismissed as withdrawn. Liberty, as prayed for, is granted. 7. Let copy of the order be given dasti to counsel for the parties under the signatures of the Court Master. /- E_{ 3>4,^r -'-- - G.s. stsrANf,- . , April 2q, ?OLO t - 'msr' w.p. (c) 698/2010, w.p.(c) 2424 12010, w.p.(cl 242612010, w.p.(cl ?-42812010, w.p.(c) 2454120L0, w.p.(c) 24ssl2010, w.l'.(C) 245612010 and W.P.(C) 2457120L0 I t' 3,(