Dheeraj Sharma And Another vs Jammu Development Authority And Others

The petitioners have approached this Court praying for the following relief:

“(a) allow the present writ petition;

(b) quash e-NIT No. JDA-I/e-NIT/2019-20/200 dated 29.01.2020, whereby and where under, tenders have been invited by e-tendering for JDA

Parking Lot at Bahu Plaza, Jammu for collection of Parking charges in the JDA’s Parking Lot at Bahu Plaza Shopping complex Block A1, A2, B1

and B2 Rail Head Complex, Jammu, to the extent, the Rates chargeable form the public by the successful contractors are not only arbitrary but are

far far less than what is being charged by the JDA in the Parking Lot controlled directly by JDA and also, far less than the rates which were charged

in 2019 for the same Tender Value;

(c) quash e-NIT No. JDA/II/e-NIT/2019-20/95 dated 04.02.2020, whereby and where under, tenders have been invited by e-tendering for JDA

Parking Lot at different locations in Jammu (Kachi Chhawni, Purani Mandi, Shalamar and Jewel Chowk) for collection of Parking charges in the

JDA’s Parking Lot at different locations in old Jammu City, to the extent, the Rates chargeable from the public by the successful contractors are

not only arbitrary, but are also far far less than what is being charged by the JDA in the Parking Lot controlled directly by JDA and also far less than

the rates which were charged in 2019 for the same Tender Value;

(d) quash e-NIT No. JDA-I/e-NIT/2019-20/204 dated 03.02.2020, whereby and where under, tenders have been invited by e-tendering for JDA

Parking Lot in front of RTO Office at Transport Nagar, Jammu, for collection of Parking charges, to the extent, the Rates chargeable from the public

by the successful contractors are not only arbitrary, but are also far far less than what is being charged by the JDA in the Parking Lot controlled

directly by JDA themselves and also far less than the rates which were charged in 2019 for the same Tender Value;

(e) command and direct the respondents to allow the successful contractors for the year 2020, to charge from the public, same rate per vehicle as are

being charged by the JDA directly from the public in the Parking Lot at Super Bazar Jammu;

OR in the alternative

(f) command and direct the respondents to allow the successful contractors for the year 2020, to charge from the public, same rate per vehicle as

were being charged in 2019;

(g) restrain the respondents from opening the tenders for allotment of parking lots at different places in Jammu till the rates of parking are revised to

the level being charged by JDA in the Parking Lot at Super Bazaar;

(h) ANY other writ, order or direction which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit or proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.â€​

Learned counsel for the petitioners while referring to the rates of parking for four wheelers and two wheelers in different NITs issued, i.e., e-NIT

No. JDA-I/e_NIT/2019-20/200 dated 29.01.2020 for JDA Parking Lot at Bahu Plaza, Jammu, e-NIT No. JDA/II/e-NIT/2019-20/95 dated 04.02.2020

for JDA Parking Lot at Kachi Chowni, Purani Mandi, Shalamar and Jewel Chowk, Jammu and e-NIT No. JDA-1/e_NIT/2019-20/204 dated

03.02.2020 for JDA Parking Place in front of RTO Office at Transport Nagar, Jammu, submitted that the rates prescribed therein for parking of

vehicles are different than the rates prescribed by the Jammu Development Authority for Super Bazaar Parking, which is maintained by it, that will

create unhealthy competition. The idea is to create monopoly of the parking with JDA as no bidder may submit bids for the tenders invited for

collection of parking charges. It shall further create unhealthy competition.

After hearing learned counsel for the petitioners, I do not find any reason to interfere in the present petition as the fixation of rates for parking for

vehicles in different areas falls within the domain of Jammu Development Authority. The Courts are not expert in deciding at what rate the parking

should be allowed for tenders issued in different areas. It is for the bidders to examine the viability before submissions of their bids. The Courts

generally do not interfere in the matters of policy, especially where the issues relate to finances.

For the reasons mentioned above, I do not find any reason to interfere in the present case, the same is accordingly dismissed.