Petitioner sought withdrawal of writ petition following respondent's concession on licence fee deduction. Court observed no permission needed for seeking contract clarification and disposed of the withdrawn petition.
Petition disposed of as withdrawn.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.1842 OF 2007
Akhtar Hussain Khan .. Petitioner
Vs.
Municipal Corporation of
Greater Mumbai & Anr. .. Respondents
Mr.J.P.Cama, Sr.Advocate i/b M/s.Sanjay Udeshi for
the petitioner
Ms.A.K.Savla for respondent nos.1 and 2
CORAM : J.N.PATEL &
K.K.TATED, JJ.
DATED : 9TH SEPTEMBER, 2008
P.C.:
1. Heard
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner
submits that the petitioner may be permitted to
withdraw the petition in view of the concession
offered by the respondent Municipal Corporation as
spelt out in Exhibit ’A’ by the Deputy Chief
Engineer Traffic i.e. having given deduction in
2
Monthly Licence Fee for a period of 54 days i.e.
from 10.03.03 to 31.03.03 for 22 days, from
01.04.03 to 12.04.03 for 12 days and from 21.04.03
to 12.06.03 for 20 days due to assembly sessions
and events at Vidhan Bhavan which prevented the
petitioner from exploiting the subject contract of
pay and park scheme at Vidhan Bhavan, Mantralaya.
3. Mr.Cama, the learned Senior Advocate for
the petitioner submitted that in the affidavit in
reply it has been contended by the respondent that
as referred in clause 29 of the contract, it
certainly means for a temporary period in the long
run of 24 months time and the word temporary should
not be for a shorter meaning as existing to a few
hours and that the work ’temporary’ is to be
considered to have a vast and broader meaning and
the respondents have accepted that they are
granting reduction in monthly licence fee for the
closer of location for the longer period as per
clause 29 of the contract.
4. Mr.Cama, the learned Senior Advocate
appearing for the petitioner submits that he may be
3
permitted to approach the respondents for seeking
clarification in respect of interpretation of
clause 29 of the terms of contract in its correct
perspective.
5. In our view, no permission is required and
it is always up to the parties to seek
clarification in the matter by pointing out to the
respondents as to the construction of the words
’few hours’ and also instances where the
authorities has closed down the parking lots from
periods of more than just few hours so that the
parties are aware of the correct meaning of the
terms of the contract if there is any vagueness in
the matter.
6. With these observations, we dispose of the
petition as withdrawn.
( J.N. PATEL, J )
( K.K. TATED, J )
Akhtar Hussain Khan
Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai
J.N. PATEL
K.K. TATED
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court