The Delhi High Court overturned an order issued by the South Delhi Municipal Corporation (SDMC) in 2018, which had directed Pacific Mall in the city not to charge parking fees to its visitors.

The division bench of Justices Vibhu Bakhru and Amit Mahajan, noted that the collection of parking fees by the mall aligns with the guidelines set in the Unified Building Byelaws for Delhi, 2016, and the Master Plan for Delhi, 2021.

The bench granted Pacific Mall's appeal and overturned a prior single judge's ruling from February 2020 that had upheld the civic body's order.

“We are unable to concur with the view of the learned Single Judge that charging of parking fee runs contrary to the spirit of the Building Byelaws. As stated above, the scope of the Building Byelaws is limited to enforcing the norms for buildings and its use in accordance with the MPD-2021,” the court said.

The bench emphasized that the challenges faced by authorities in enforcing traffic laws shouldn't serve as a basis for the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) to intervene in the operations of a commercial enterprise and demand free parking provision.

“As noted above, Mr. Arora (Counsel for SDMC) is unable to point out any provision of the Building Byelaws (other than stating that parking the spaces are not included in FAR), which would entitle MCD to direct PDCL to provide parking space free of charge. This would clearly amount to expropriating the appellant’s property without the authority of law,” the court said.

The MCD argued that Pacific Mall shouldn't charge for parking since the parking areas aren't factored into the permissible Floor Area Ratio (FAR) of the commercial complex.

The MCD asserted that as the parking space wasn't considered in the Floor Area Ratio (FAR), it couldn't be commercially utilized or put to any commercial use. In contrast, Pacific Mall argued that the exclusion of parking spaces from FAR was in accordance with Building Byelaws, which dictate the allowable extent of construction based on the total plot area. They highlighted that this exclusion from FAR didn't prohibit the collection of fees for vehicles parked in those spaces.

The bench, in granting the plea, determined that the Building Byelaws specifically govern the regulations and standards for constructing buildings. These norms do not dictate whether the permissible use of such buildings generates any financial gain or not.

“The field covered by the Building Byelaws relates to building norms and standards for specified buildings in permissible zones. The said byelaws do not control or monitor any aspect of the use of building. Thus, if the buildings are constructed in accordance with the Building Byelaws and are used in accordance with the permissible use, the same are duly satisfied,” the court said.

It added, “MCD certainly would not be concerned with the lease or license conditions of a retail shop in a District Court Complex or whether operation of a library in the said complex is remunerative. So long as the activities carried out in a District Court Complex fall within the scope of the permitted activities, the development control norms and the Building Byelaws would be duly complied with.”

The bench highlighted that parking stands as one of the approved activities designated for the basement and specified areas within Pacific Mall. They emphasized that as long as these areas are utilized for vehicle parking, the MCD cannot allege misuse simply because the owner charges a fee for allowing parking on the premises.

Counsel for Appellant: Mr Sudhir Nandrajog, Senior Advocate with Ms Meenakshi Jha and Mr Neeraj Kumar, Advocates

Counsel for Respondents: Mr Ajjay Arora, Mr Kapil Dutta and Mr Vansh Luthra, Advocates for R-1; Ms Teena Srivastava, Advocate for R-2

Case Title: M/S PACIFIC DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD. (CONCESSIONAIRE OF DELHI METRO RAIL CORPORATION) v. SOUTH DELHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION & ANR