2 to 9. $~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI [2] + W.P.(C) 698/2010 KUNAL FOOD PRODUCTSPVT.LTD. Petitioner Through : l^ir. M.L. Lahoty, Mr. Paban K. Sharma and Ms. Gargi Bhatta Bhurali, Advs. versus DELHI DEVELOPMENTAUTHORITY&ANR. Respondents X Through: Mr. Ajay Vernfia,Adv. for the DDA. Mr. S.L. Gupta, Adv. for respondent no.2. [3] 4- W.P.(C) 2424/2010 KUNAL FOOD PRODUCTSPVT LTD Petitioner Through : Mr. Ajay Kumar, Adv. versus DELHI DEVELOPMENTAUTHORITY Respondent Through: Mr. Ajay Verma, Adv. for the DDA. [4] + W.P.(C) 2426/2010 INDOGREEN INTERNATIONAL Petitioner Through : Mr. Ajay Kunnar, Advs. versus DELHI DEVELOPMENTAUTHORITY 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 [5] + W.P.(C) 2428/2010 SS INFRASTUCTURE Petitioner Through : Mr. Ajay Kumar, Advs. versus DELHI DEVELOPMENTAUTHORITY ..... Respondent Through : Mr. Ajay Vernna, Adv. for the DDA. [6] + W.P.(C) 2454/2010 , MAHAGUN HOTEL PVT LTD Petitioner Through : Mr. M.L. Lahoty, Mr. Paban K. Sharma and Ms. Gargi Bhatta Bhurali, Advs. ( versus DELHI DEVELOPMENTAUTHORITY Respondent Through : Mr. Ajay Verma, Adv. for the DDA. [7] + W.P.(C) 2455/2010 S CHAND &CO LTD Petitioner Through : Mr. M.L. Lahoty, Mr. Paban K. Sharma and Ms. Gargi Bhatta Bhurali, Advs. / versus DELHI DEVELOPMENTAUTHORITY Respondent Through ; Mr. Ajay Verma, Adv. for the DDA. WP(C) 698/2010,W.P.(C)2424/2010,W.P.{C)2426/2010, W.P.(C)2428/2010,W.P.(C)2454/2010,W.P.(C)2455/2010, W.P.{C) 2456/2010 and W.P.(C) 2457/2010 / [8] + W.P.(C) 2456/2010 SPIRIT HOTEL & RESORT Petitioner Through : Mr. M.L. Lahoty, Mr. Paban K. Sharma and Ms. Gargi Bhatta Bhurali, Advs. versus DELHI DEVELOPMENTAUTHORITY Respondent Through : Mr. Ajay Verma, Adv. for the DDA. [9] + W.P.(C) 2457/2010 D.G.ESTATEPVT.LTD Petitioner Through : Mr. M.L. Lahoty, Mr. Paban K. Sharma ^ and Ms. Gargi Bhatta Bhurali, Advs. versus DELHI DEVELOPMENTAUTHORITY Respondent Through : Mr. Ajay Verma, Adv. for the DDA. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S.SISTANI ORDER % 26.04.2010 1. This is a second round of litigation between the petitioners and / the respondentDDA. Petitionershave participatedin an auction conducted by the DDA for constructionof hotels primarilyfor the forthcoming Commonwealth Games, 2010. Petitioners are aggrievedby the rejectionof the representationsmade 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) 2424/2010, W.P.{C)2426/2010, WP.{C) 2428/2010, W.P.{C) 2454/2010, W.P.(C)2455/2010, W P.(C) 2456/2010 and W.P.(C)2457/2010 I 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 petitionersand grant them a personal hearing before passing a reasoned order. Counsel further submits that although the representationhas been consideredand rejectedby the DDA but no personal hearing was granted to the petitionersto enable them to explain their case in detail. The petitioners have approachedthis Court again under the threat of encashing of performanceguarantees.Counsel also submitsthat, in fact, the petitionershave been shockedat the orderof rejectionin view of the fact that a meeting was held between the petitioners and the DDA on 18.2.2010 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 positivelybe completedby May / June, 2010, and thereby leave enough period of cushion of almost four months before the CommonwealthGames, 2010. Counsel next submits that having reached this understanding it was totally unfair and uncalledfor by the DDA to issue rejectionorder and threatenencashmentof ^ performancesecurity.Counsel for petitionerhas also drawn the attention of the Court to page 96 of the paper book with regard to minutes of the meeting dated 12.2.2010 wherein DDA had agreed to complete water supply work, sewerage work, Drain work. Roads and electricity by the end of March. WP.(C) 698/2010.W.P.(C)2424/2010,W.P.(C)2426/2010, W.P.(C)2428/2010,W.P.(C)2454/2010,W.P.(C)2455/2010, W.P.(C)2456/2010 and W.P.(C) 2457/2010 V 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/SBI in W.P.(C)No.698/2010,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 petitions,to enable the petitionersto seek appropriateremedy, as may be available to them in accordance with law. 6. Accordingly, writ petitions and all pending applications are 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. G.S. SISTANI,X April 2^ 2010 msr W.P.(C) 698/2010, W.P.(C) 2424/2010, W.P.(C)2426/2010, W.P.(C)2428/2010, W.P,(C) 2454/2010, W.P.(C)2455/2010 W.P.(C) 2456/2010 and W.P.(C) 2457/2010 5/5