K M Enterprises vs. Delhi Development Authority Through Vice Chairman & Ors.
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, K M Enterprises, was allotted a function site (NZ-29B) by the Delhi Development Authority (DDA) in September 2022 for 36 months. The petitioner claims to have paid approximately Rs. 2,58,93,298/- and is currently paying about Rs. 15 lakhs monthly. The DDA alleged encroachment by the petitioner onto respondent no. 3's site and issued show cause notices for non-payment of EMD and license fee, leading to contract termination on May 29, 2024. The petitioner disputes these allegations, stating that the outstanding amount of Rs. 40 lakhs is the GST payable by the DDA to the petitioner. The petitioner also sought to quash cancellation orders and show cause notices, requesting an extension of their license period. The petitioner filed a writ petition seeking various directions, including framing of SOPs, regular inspections, and quashing of termination orders.
Held
The Court directed that the representations of the petitioner, along with the present writ petition treated as a representation, be adjudicated by a responsible officer of the DDA. This officer is to hear the petitioner and pass a speaking order expeditiously. Until the speaking order is passed, the interim order dated December 17, 2024, shall continue. The Court left all rights and contentions of the parties open to be disposed of by the concerned officer in accordance with law. The petition was disposed of with pending applications. The Court did not explicitly decide the legality of the cancellation orders or the issue of extension based on parity, deferring these to the adjudication by the DDA officer.
Key Issues
1. Whether the cancellation order dated May 29, 2024, and subsequent show cause notices dated July 15, 2024, and July 24, 2024, issued by the DDA against the petitioner are illegal, arbitrary, and contrary to law, particularly in light of the petitioner's payment of license fees and the alleged GST dues from the DDA? (Question of law and fact, turning on the terms of the e-auction bid process and contract conditions). 2. Whether the petitioner is similarly situated to other allottees who have been granted extensions for their function sites, and if so, should the petitioner also be granted an extension? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner argued that the cancellation orders and show cause notices were passed mechanically and arbitrarily, despite the petitioner having paid up-to-date license fees. They contended that a significant portion of the alleged outstanding amount was GST payable by the DDA. The petitioner also sought parity with similarly situated individuals who received extensions. Revenue/State's arguments: The DDA (respondent no. 1 & 2) opposed the petition, arguing that the petitioner was not similarly situated due to alleged encroachment and default in timely payment of EMD and license fee. They disputed the petitioner's claim regarding GST dues.
Sections Cited
None explicitly discussed in the provided text.
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
O R D E R % 06.02.2026
This is a petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following prayers: - a) issue an appropriate writ or any other appropriate order or direction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India directing the respondents no.l and 2 to ensure that the work of function site NZ-29B, Mangolpuri Industrial Area/ Anukampa Chowk, Pitampura, New Delhi allotted to respondent no.3 does not disturb the function site of petitioner NZ-29A, Mangolpuri, Industrial Area, Anukampa Chowk, Pitampura, New Delhi in any manner being the adjacent function site of petitioner and respondent no. l be directed to frame their norms/guidelines/SOP qua function sites regarding fire safety norms, protection of trees and other natural greenery etc. by respondents no. l and 2 to the allottees and all the respondents be directed to make regular inspections and supervise the function sites so that they are run in accordance with law and This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 12/02/2026 at 14:17:53
restrain the respondent no.3 from carrying out any further work from their function site which will have adverse impact or would disturb the functioning of petitioner tent in any manner till the decision of the present petition and till the decision of the present writ petition, respondent no. l and 2 be directed to maintain status quo qua function site no.NZ- 29A, Mangolpuri, Industrial Area, Anukampa Chowk, Pitampura, New Delhi allotted to petitioner by respondent no.l; and b) issue a writ of mandamus and any other writ or direction directing the respondents no.l and 2 have committed grave irregularity by allotting the function site just adjacent to the site of petitioner and by failing to ensure that respondent no.3 does not remove/fell any trees/other greenery from their function site at NZ-29B, Mangolpuri, Industrial Area, Anukampa Chowk, Pitampura, New Delhi either inside or outside their function site no.NZ-29B, Mangolpuri, Industrial Area, Anukampa Chowk, Pitampura, New Delhi as 25 to 30 full grown trees have already been removed from the function site of respondent no.3 and be pleased to order respondent no.l to cancel function site of respondent no.3 in view of violations of law committed by them; and c) be pleased to direct the respondents no.4 & 5 to take immediate steps against respondent no.l and respondent no.3 for felling/removal of full grown 25 to 30 trees from the function site allotted to respondent no.3 illegally and respondent no.4 and 5 be directed to forthwith file their status report/counter affidavit on the basis of inspections conducted by them in furtherance of their statutory duties and submit a detailed status report before this Hon'ble Court and till then respondents be directed to maintain status quo qua function site no.NZ-29B, Mangolpuri, Industrial Area, Anukampa Chowk, Pitampura, New Delhi; and d) be pleased to direct the respondents no.l, 4 and 5 to frame SOP for smooth running of these function sites and ensure that all future allotment of function sites by respondent no.l would This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 12/02/2026 at 14:17:53
be in accordance with newly framed SOP/Guidelines/law and the existence of trees etc. is made known to the allottees of function site who have to preserve the same; and e) direct the respondents no.1 and 2 not to allot more than one function site in any particular area so as to avoid congestion . on roads and also ensure that sufficient parking facilities are provided to function sites for smooth running of traffic etc. so that petitioner's function site does not suffer for their free movement/traffic movement etc. and it should not hamper their life in any manner; and f) pass an appropriate order or direction declaring that the cancellation order dated 29.05.2024 and show cause notice dated 15.07.2024 and 24.07.2024 as passed by respondents no.1 and 2 against petitioner function site are illegal and wrong order/show cause notices which have been passed contrary to law and in a mechanical and arbitrary manner despite petitioner's payment of upto date licence fee to the tune of Rs.3,10,41,000/- and the same may kindly be set aside/quashed by this Hon'ble Court and it be also directed by this Hon'ble Cqurt that the petitioner be allowed to work in his function site smoothly without any obstruction or interference by respondents no.l and 2 upto April, 2026 and the time to vacate the function site by petitioner be extended in view of obstructions/illegal actions of respondents no.1 to 3 for a period of five moths w.e.f. July, 2024 to November, 2024 till the pendency of the writ petition; and h) pass an appropriate order or direction declaring that the notice dated 29.05.2024, 15.07.2024 and final notice dated 24.07.2024 passed by respondents no. l and 2 against petitioner are misconceived, untenable in law and have been passed on wrong premise and contrary to their own terms and conditions of the e-auction bid process as issued by respondents no. l and 2; and i) pass such other or further order(s) as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 12/02/2026 at 14:17:53
present case.”
The case of the petitioner is that respondent no. 1 in September, 2022 allotted a function site bearing NZ-29B, Mangolpuri, Industrial Area, Anukampa Chowk, Pitampura, New Delhi to the petitioner for a period of 36 months at a license fee of 13,11,074/- per month along with GST.
It is stated that the petitioner has paid a sum of about Rs. 2,58,93,298/- and at present is paying about Rs. 15 lakhs per month. The respondent Nos. 1 and 2 have alleged that the petitioner has encroached the function site of respondent No. 3, additionally respondent Nos. 1 and 2 have also issued show cause notices for non-payment of EMD as well as licence fee and the contract also stood terminated on 29.05.2024. The same was permitted to be challenged by order dated 25.11.2024 passed in WP(C) 9873/2024. 4. Ms. Sahni, learned counsel for the petitioner, has orally stated that similarly situated persons as the petitioner have been granted extension for a period of one year i.e. from 01.11.2025 to 31.10.2026. The petitioner on ground of parity restricts the prayer to the same.
Ms. Tripathy, learned counsel for DDA opposes the petition on the ground that the petitioner is not similarly situated. The petitioner besides encroachment has been defaulter in making payment of EMD as well as licence fee in time. The said contention is disputed by the learned counsel for the petitioner who states that the petitioner has made up to date payment except a payment of Rs. 40 lakhs which is the GST amount payable by the DDA to the petitioner.
In the present case, the petitioner has already made numerous representations to the respondent No. 1 dated 01.08.2025 and 01.09.2025 This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 12/02/2026 at 14:17:53
and more particularly 17.07.2024 which are yet to be adjudicated.
For the said reasons, it is directed that the representations of the petitioner along with the present writ petition which shall be treated as a representation by the DDA and a responsible officer after hearing the petitioner will adjudicate and decide the representations by passing a speaking order, expeditiously. Till the speaking order is passed, the interim order dated 17.12.2024 shall continue.
The representations dated 01.08.2025 and 01.09.2025 handed over in Court taken on record.
All rights and contentions of the parties are left open and shall be disposed by the concerned officer, in accordance with law.
The present petition is disposed of, with pending applications, if any. JASMEET SINGH, J FEBRUARY 6, 2026/NG This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 12/02/2026 at 14:17:53
Reproduced from the public record of the Delhi High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.