i' (-, 2to9. I $- * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI t2l + w.P.(c) 698/2010 KUNAL FOOD PRODUCTS PW.LTD. ..... PCtitiONCT Through : Mr. M,L, Lahoty, Mr. Paban K. Sharma and Ms. Gargi Bhatta Bhurali, Advs. - ? 1 - DELHI DEVEL9pMENT AUTHoRtry &ANR .... Respondents Through : Mr. Ajay Verma, Adv. for the DDA. Mr. S.L. Gupta, Adv. for respondent no.Z. I31 + w.P.(c) 2424120t0 KUNAL FOOD PRODUCTS PVT LTD ..... PCtitiONCT Through : Mr. Ajay Kumar, Adv. VCTSUS DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY ..... Respondent Through : Mr. Ajay Verma, Adv. for the DDA. ' t4I J .. + W.P.(C) 242612010 INDOGREEN INTERNATIONAL ..... Petitioner Through : Mr. AjaY Kumar, Advs. VCTSUS 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 tsI + w.P.(C) 242Bl2OrO SS INFRASTUCTURE Through : Mr. AjaY Kumar, Advs. ..... Petitioner VCTSUS DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY ""' Respondent Through : Mr. Ajay Verma, Adv. for the DDA' t6I r 4 +."-. W.P.(C) 2454120L0 MAHAGUN HOTEL PVT LTD ..... PCtitiONCT Through : Mr. I\4.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' t7t + w.P.(c) 24ssl2oto S CHAND & CO LTD ""' Petitioner a Through : Mr. M.L. Lahoty, Mr' Paban K' Sharma i'andMs.GargiBhattaBhura|i,Advs. versus DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY ""' Respondent Through : Mr. Ajay Verma, Adv. for the DDA' w.P.(c) 698/2010, W.P.(C) 242412OL0' W'P'(C) 242612010, w.p.ici 242gl2oro, w.P.(c) 245412oLo, w.P.(c) 24ssl2010, W.P.n 2456t2O10 and W'P.(C) 2457 l2OIo 2ts t8I+ w.P.(c) 24s6l2oto SPIRIT HOTEL & RESORT ""' Petitioner Through : Mr. M.L' Lahoty, Mr, Paban K' Sharma " and Ms. Gargi Bhatta Bhurali, Advs' VETSUS DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY '.'.' RCSPONdCNT Through : Mr. Ajay Verma, Adv' for the DDA' r i lrii '/ + W.P.(C) 2457l2OlO 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 "." RCSPONdCNT Through : Mr. Ajay Verma' Adv' for the DDA' CORAM: HON',BLE MR' JUSTICE G.S.SlsTANl ORDER o/n 26.O4.20f'O 1'w a | 1. This is a second round of titigation 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 Commonwea|th Games, 201-0. 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) 698/20l.O, W'P.(c) 242412!to, w'P'(c) 242612010' w:b:iai zqzlilpoto,w.P.(c) 2454t20to, w'P'(c) 24ssl2010' w.p.ici zqsa?oto and w.P'(c) 24s7120t0 3/s t -) 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 r-., 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 18.2.20L0 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 I 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 L2.2'20]-0 wherein DDA had agreed to complete water supply work, sewerage work, Drain work,RoadsandelectricitybytheendofMarch. w.P.(c) 698/2010, W.P.(C) 2424t2OLo, w.P.(c) 242612010' ,i,p'.iei zizs t zo r b, w. p. (c) 24s 4 t2oto, w. P' (c) 2455 t2oto' w.p.(c) zqsol2010 and w.P.(c) 2457l2OtO 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. e\ 4. 5. 6. 7. J- E-s '- G.S. S|STANI, J. I a f April 26/2OLO 'msr' w.P. (c) 698/2010, w.P.(c) 242 4 12070, W.p.(Cl 242612010, w.P.(c) 242812010, w.p.(c) 245 4l2OrO, W.p.(C) 2455/201.0, w.P.(C) 24s6l2olo and W,P.(C) 2457120Io