$~15 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 6659/2018, CM APPL. 25367/2018 & CM APPL. 49615/2018 INDRAPRASTHA MEDICAL .....Petitioner Through: Dr. Lalit Bhasin, Ms. Nina Gupta, Ms. Vishali Sivagnanam and Mr. Ajay Pratap Singh, Advs. (Through VC) versus SOUTH DELHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION .....Respondent Through: Mr. Siddharth Gupta, SC for R-MCD Mob: 9810141287 Email: guptasiddharth73@gmail.com CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MINI PUSHKARNA % 09.09.2025 O R D E R 1. The present writ petition has been filed inter alia against the action of the respondent, i.e., South Delhi Municipal Corporation (“SDMC”), now Municipal Corporation of Delhi, in erecting a signage of “Free Parking” outside the entry gate of the petitioner’s hospital premises, i.e., Apollo Hospital, Sarita Vihar, New Delhi, without prior notice. Further, the petitioner also seeks quashing of the Show Cause Notices dated 28th December, 2015, 19th January, 2016, 30th March, 2016 and 23rd 2. Pursuant to the directions of this Court, a Status Report dated 05 October, 2017, in this regard. th September, 2025, has been filed on behalf of the MCD, relevant portions of This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 15/09/2025 at 12:13:13 which, read as under: “xxx xxx xxx This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 15/09/2025 at 12:13:13 xxx xxx xxx” 3. Perusal of the aforesaid Status Report of the MCD clearly shows that the MCD admits that vide the judgment passed by the Division Bench, the issue with respect to the parking fees to be charged by the various entities, has been now decided in favour of the petitioner herein. 4. It is further apparent from the Status Report of the MCD that against the said judgment dated 21st November, 2023, of the Division Bench, the MCD also filed a Special Leave Petition (“SLP”), i.e., SLP No. 10899/2024, titled as “Municipal Corporation of Delhi Versus M/s. Pacific Development Corporation Ltd. & Anr.”, before the Supreme Court. However, vide order dated 29th April, 2024, the said SLP filed on behalf of the MCD was dismissed. Thus, it is apparent that the judgment dated 21st 5. This Court notes that vide judgment dated 21 November, 2023, passed by Division Bench, has gained finality. st November, 2023, passed in LPA 130/2020, titled as “M/s Pacific Development Corporation Ltd. (Concessionare of Delhi Metro Rail Corporation) Versus South Delhi This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 15/09/2025 at 12:13:13 Municipal Corporation & Anr”, the Division Bench of this Court held as follows: “xxx xxx xxx 24. As noted above, the principal question to be addressed is whether the owner/lessor of a commercial complex is proscribed from collecting parking charges for the reason that parking space is not included in the FAR. As noted above, it is MCD's case that since, the parking space required to be constructed under the relevant Building Byelaws, is not included for computing the FAR, the same cannot be exploited commercially. Therefore, parking charges cannot be collected. 25. In our view the said reasoning is flawed. MPD-2021 contains the planning norms for the development of property in Delhi. The planning norms expressly provide for the permissible FAR, which is related to the area of the plot. MPD-2021 also specifies the 'use zones' and the ‘use premises’. The planning norms also include the parking standards required for the 'use premises'. In case of community centers, commercial centers and non-hierarchical commercial centers, the parking standards require 3 ECS (equivalent car spaces) to be factored for every 100 square meters of floor area. The standards for ECS have been fixed in the context of the space where it (ECS) is provided. It is dependent on whether the parking space is situated in a covered area, an open area or in a basement. There are also other factors, which determine the ECS. xxx xxx xxx” (Emphasis Supplied) 6. Perusal of the aforesaid judgment clearly shows that the Division Bench has given a clear finding that fees for parking can be charged by the respective entities. 7. At this stage, learned counsel appearing for MCD submits that the Lease Deed of the petitioner herein needs to be amended, as a similar situation was present in the case before the Division Bench also. 8. Accordingly, liberty is granted to the petitioner to get its Lease with the MCD amended, if so required. 9. Noting the aforesaid, the present writ petition, along with the pending This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 15/09/2025 at 12:13:13 applications, is accordingly disposed of. MINI PUSHKARNA, J SEPTEMBER 9, 2025/SK This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 15/09/2025 at 12:13:13