Sunil Yadav vs. V.M.M.C And Safdarjung Hospital

Facts

The Petitioner, Sunil Yadav, filed a writ petition before the Delhi High Court challenging an action or order by the Respondent, V.M.M.C and Safdarjung Hospital. The core of the grievance appears to be related to the allotment and operation of kiosks. The Respondent has since issued a letter dated January 19, 2023, addressed to the Petitioner. This letter declares the Petitioner as the approved H-1 firm for operating five kiosks at V.M.M.C and Safdarjung Hospital. The approval is subject to a monthly license fee of Rs. 5,52,600/- plus GST at 18%. The letter also states that possession of the kiosks will be handed over after the current occupants vacate, and these occupants have been issued a notice to clear dues and hand over possession within seven days.

Held

The Court noted the submission by the Petitioner's counsel that the grievance has been addressed by the Respondent. The Respondent placed on record a letter dated January 19, 2023, which confirms the Petitioner's approval as the H-1 firm for operating five kiosks at V.M.M.C and Safdarjung Hospital. The approval is contingent upon the payment of a monthly license fee of Rs. 5,52,600/- plus 18% GST. The letter further stipulates that vacant possession of the kiosks will be handed over to the Petitioner after the current occupants vacate, with the current occupants having been issued a seven-day notice to clear dues and hand over possession. The Court directed that the Respondent shall be bound by the contents of this letter and that vacant possession must be handed over within seven days as per the letter. Consequently, the writ petition was disposed of.

Key Issues

1. Whether the Petitioner's grievance regarding the allotment and operation of kiosks at V.M.M.C and Safdarjung Hospital has been addressed by the Respondent? (Question of fact) Petitioner's Contention: The Petitioner's counsel submitted that the grievance of the Petitioner stands addressed by the Respondent. No specific arguments or reliance on any provisions, circulars, or precedents were recorded for the Petitioner. Respondent's Contention: The Respondent, through its counsel, has placed on record a letter dated January 19, 2023, which details the approval of the Petitioner for operating five kiosks on payment of a specified license fee and GST. The Respondent's action, as evidenced by this letter, is presented as the resolution of the Petitioner's grievance. No specific arguments or reliance on any provisions, circulars, or precedents were recorded for the Respondent beyond the submission of the aforementioned letter.