Chandigarh Defence Colony Welfare Association, Sector 35 vs. Union Territory Of Chandigarh And Ors

Facts

The petitioner, Chandigarh Defence Colony Welfare Association, filed a writ petition challenging a communication dated 13.05.2025, which terminated a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) dated 11.09.2019. The MOU was for the maintenance and upkeep of 44 parks in Sector 35, Chandigarh. The petitioner alleged the termination was due to political reasons. However, the Court examined the petitioner's own communications, specifically a reply dated 13.02.2025 (Annexure P-3) and a letter dated 22.04.2025 (Annexure P-4). These documents indicated the petitioner's intention to cease maintenance of the parks, citing issues with government fees, GST, and lack of maintenance funds, and even giving notice to its employees for termination of services.

Held

The Court held that the termination of the MOU dated 11.09.2019 by the respondent authority vide communication dated 13.05.2025 was justified. The reasoning was based on the petitioner's own communications. Specifically, the Court found that the petitioner's reply dated 13.02.2025 (Annexure P-3) indicated an intention to cease maintenance, raising concerns about park usage without fees and GST, and stating, "if the Parks of Sub Sectors 35A and B are taken, then the Parks of Sector 35C and D may also be taken as we will not maintain them." Furthermore, the letter dated 22.04.2025 (Annexure P-4) explicitly stated "SURRENDERING OF MAINTENANCE OF NEIGHBOURHOOD PARKS/GREEN BELTS OF SECTOR 35 CHANDIGARH" and mentioned giving notice to employees for termination of services due to non-receipt of maintenance funds. The Court concluded that these documents left no doubt about the petitioner's intention to discontinue maintenance. Therefore, the Court found no fault with the concerned authority terminating the MOU based on these clear indications from the petitioner. The ratio decidendi is that a party cannot challenge an action taken by an authority if that action is a direct consequence of the party's own expressed intentions and requests.

Key Issues

1. Whether the termination of the MOU dated 11.09.2019 by the respondent authority vide communication dated 13.05.2025 was arbitrary and without merit, thereby warranting interference by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India? Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner contended that the termination was politically motivated and that they had not made any request for termination. They relied on the fact that the impugned communication was a termination notice, implying an action by the authority against their will. Revenue/State's Arguments: The respondents, through the impugned communication and the Court's analysis of the petitioner's own letters, argued that the termination was based on the petitioner's explicit requests and intentions to surrender the maintenance of the parks. They pointed to the petitioner's own letters dated 13.02.2025 and 22.04.2025 as evidence of this.