;- 2toe. C $-/ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI tzt + W.P.(C) 698/2010 KUNAL FOOD PRODUCTS PW.LTD. ..... Petitioner Through : Mr. M.L. Lahoty, Mr. Paban K. Sharma and Ms. Gargi Bhatta Bhurali, Advs. VCTSUS -. t. ; DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY &ANR .... Respondents !-'' i through : Mr. Ajay Verma, Adv. for the DDA. Mr. S.L. Gupta, Adv. for respondent no.2. t3I+ w.P.(c) 2424|2OLO KUNAL FOOD PRODUCTS PVT LTD ..... Petitioner Through : Mr. Ajay Kumar, Adv. versus DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY ..... Respondent Through : Mr. Ajay Verma, Adv. for the DDA. ' l4l r + w.P.(c) 242612010 INDOGREEN INTERNATIONAL ..... PCtitiONCT ._) Through : Mr. AjaY Kumar, Advs. versus DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY ..... Respondent Through : 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 ; rsl J- + w.P.(c) 242Bl2Ot0 SS INFRASTUCTURE ..... Petitioner Through : Mr. AjaY Kumar, Advs. VCTSUS DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY ..'.. Respondent Through : Mr. Ajay Verma, Adv. for the DDA. t6I+ w.P.(c) 24s4120t0 Through : Mr. M.L. Lahoty, Mr. Paban K. Sharma and Ms. Gargi Bhatta Bhurali, Advs. versus DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY ".'. Respondent Through : Mr. Ajay Verma, Adv. for the DDA' t7l + w.P.(c) 245s120]-0 S CHAND & CO LTD .... Petitioner r ' Through : Mr. M.L. Lahoty, Mr. Paban K. Sharma and Ms. Gargi Bhatta Bhurali, Advs. a' VCTSUS -) DELHT DEVEL9pMENT AUTH9R;TY ..... Respondent Through : Mr. Ajay Verma, Adv, for the DDA. w.P.(c) 698/2010, w.P.(c) 2424 l2OrO, w.P.(Cl 2426 I2OLO' w.P.(c) 2428 t2O10, w.P.(c) 24s4 lzjtl, W.P.(C) 2455 l2OrO' W.P.(C) 2456l2OtO and W.P'(C) 2457l2OlO 2ts t8I+ w.P.(c) 24s6l2OLO SPIRIT HOTEL & RESORT .... Petitioner Through : Mr. M.L. Lahoty, Mr. Paban K. Sharma and Ms. Gargi Bhatta Bhurali, Advs. VETSUS DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY ..... Respondent Through : Mr. Ajay Verma, Adv. for the DDA. tsl , + W.P.(C) 2457120]-0 ,.^ 't: D.G.ESTATE PW.LTD ..... Petitioner Through : Mr. M.L. Lahoty, Mr. Paban K. Sharma and Ms. Gargi Bhatta Bhurali, Advs. VCTSUS DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY ..... Respondent Through : Mr. Ajay Verma, Adv. for the DDA. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTTCE G.S.S|STANI 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 forthcoming Commonwealth Games, 2010. Petitioners are 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) 2424 l20LO, W .P.(Cl 2426120L0, w. p. (c) 2428 | 20L0, W .p.(C) 24s 4 120 1 0, W. P. ( C) 24s5 t20t0, W.P.(C) 2456120L0 and W.P.(C) 24571201,0 315 V" a A --r 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 representation has been considered and rejected by the DDA but 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 also 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 DDA on 18.2.201-0 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 enough period of cushion of almost four months before the Commonwealth Games, 2010. Counsel next submits that having '-'- reached this understanding it was totally unfair and uncalled for by the DDA to issue rejection order and threaten encashment of performance security. Counsel for petitioner has also drawn the attention of the Court to page 96 of the paper book with regard to minutes of the meeting dated L2.2.20I0 wherein DDA had agreed to complete water supply work, sewerage work, Drain work, Roads and electricity by the end of March. w.p. (c) 698/2010, w.p.(c) 2424 120L0, w.P,(cl 2426120L0, w.p.(c't 2428 t20 r0, w.P. (c) 24s 4 12010, w.P. (c) 24ssl20r.0, W.P.(C) 2456/2010 and W.P.(C) 245712010 { \ 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. 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. After some hearing in the matter, learned counsel for the petitioners, on instructions, wish to withdraw the present writ petitions, to enable the petitioners to seek appropriate remedy, as may be available to them in accordance with law. Accordingly, writ petitions and all pending applications are dismissed as withdrawn. Liberty, as prayed for, is granted. Let copy of the order be given dasti to counsel for the parties under the signatures of the Court Master. r ] /f 4. 5. 6. 7. E-c <h--- -- c.s. srsrANt--- April 26/2oto t'msr' <' w.P.(c) 698/20 1.0, w. p. (c) 2424 |2OLO, W.p.(C) 2426 l20LO, w.P.(c) 242812010, w.p.(c) 2454 |2OLO, W.p.(C) 24ss l2OrO, w.P.(cl 24s612010 and W.P.(C) 2457l2oto s