Case: DHIRENDER KUMAR SINGH V. SOUTH DELHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION
Facts of the Case
The Petitioner was allotted a parking site from 02.03.2017 at a monthly license fee of Rs. 12,76,999/-. Around 50-60% of the parking site was not in operation due to Tehbazari and the installation of benches in the parking area by SDMC. Thus he requested to reduce the parking fee.
After inspecting the competent authority decided to reduce the monthly license fee from Rs. 12,76,999/- to Rs. 9,14,440/- per month with immediate effect. The excess security deposit calculated @ Rs. 12,76,999/- was directed to be adjusted towards arrears of license fee. The perusal of the representation given by the petitioner shows that the petitioner’s grievance is about the non-adjustment of the alleged excess amount paid for the period between when the parking the site was allotted to the petitioner and till the time decision was taken by the competent authority.
The Petitioner gave a representation for adjustment for the same which was not accepted.
Statements of the Counsel
Petitioner
The counsel for the petitioner submits that all the submissions made by the counsel for the respondent justifying the order do not find a mention in the order. The counsel further added that the order does not contain any reason for rejecting the representation of the Petitioner.
Respondent
The counsel for the respondent submits that the decision taken by the competent authority was prospective and not retrospective and the same is evident from the letter dated 12.12.2017. He further submits that the petitioner had paid the monthly license fee till the decision was taken by the court. The petitioner is not entitled to any adjustment. He added further that after reducing the amount the petitioner defaulted in making the payment. He further submits that the first time a representation was received on 24.08.2020 seeking an adjustment of the amount paid by him for the earlier period.
Observation of the Court
The court observed that it is a settled position of law that an administrative order has to speak for itself. The order cannot be supplemented by fresh reasons in the shape of an affidavit or otherwise. The reasons must be there in the order itself.
The perusal of the impugned order shows that all the submissions made by the learned counsel for the respondent justifying the impugned order do not find a mention in the impugned order.
The said order does not even refer to the deal with the contentions raised by the petitioner in his representation.
Court’s Decision
The Hon’ble High Court allowed the petition. The court remitted the matter to the respondent to decide the representation of the petitioner afresh after giving an opportunity of a hearing to the petitioner.
The Court further directed the respondent to dispose of the representation of the petitioner afresh without being influenced by anything stated in this order. The court further reserved the rights and contentions of the parties.
Click here to view the Judgment.
Libertatem.in is now on Telegram. Follow us for regular legal updates and judgment from courts. Follow us on Google News, Instagram, LinkedIn, Facebook & Twitter. You can subscribe to our Weekly Email Updates. You can also contribute stories like this and help us spread awareness for a better society. Submit Your Post Now.
