$~31 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 9822/2026 M/S HITLER .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Chirag Alagh, Adv. versus MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI & ANR. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Tushar Sannu, Mr. Parvin Bansal, Advs. with Mr. Ravi Malik JSA RP Cell, for MCD. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. KAMESWAR RAO HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA O R D E R % 21.07.2026 CM APPL. 45791/2026 (Exemption) 1. Exemption is allowed, subject to all just exceptions. 2. The application stands disposed of. W.P.(C) 9822/2026 & CM APPL. 45790/2026 3. This petition has been filed with the following prayers:- “a). Issue a Writ of Certiorari, or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, quashing and setting aside the communication dated 10.07.2026 issued by Respondent No.1, whereby the Technical Bid of the Petitioner was rejected; b). Issue a Writ of Mandamus, or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, directing Respondent No.1 to open and consider the Financial Bid submitted by the Petitioner on. 27.05.2026, in accordance with the NIT dated 05.05.2026, and to declare the result thereof on merits; c). Issue a Writ of Mandamus, or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, restraining Respondent No.1 from issuing, 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 27/07/2026 at 15:43:46 acting upon, or giving effect to any Letter of Award/Letter of Acceptance (LOA) / possession letter in favour of Respondent No.2, and from taking any further or consequential steps — including handing over of possession, execution of agreement, or allotment — with respect to the parking site situated at “adjoining Saraswati Kunj Society, Patparganj” forming subject-matter of the NIT dated 05.05.2026, in favour of Respondent No.2; d). Issue a Writ of Mandamus, or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, quashing/setting aside the allotment of the parking site situated at “adjoining Saraswati Kunj Society, Patparganj” if already made in favour of Respondent No.2 pursuant to the process impugned herein, and directing Respondent No.I to allot the said parking site/contract in question to the Petitioner, upon the Petitioner being found to be the successful bidder consequent upon opening of its Financial Bid; e). Pass an ad-interim ex-parte order restraining Respondent No. I from issuing any Letter of Award/Letter of Acceptance (LOA) I possession letter to Respondent No.2, and from taking any further or consequential steps or action pursuant to the impugned communication dated 10.07.2026 - including qua the parking site situated at "adjoining Saraswati Kunj Society, Patparganj" if already allotted to Respondent No. l - pending the final disposal of the present writ petition; f). Pass any other order(s) or direction(s) as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the present case, in the interest of justice; and g). Award costs of the present proceedings in favour of the Petitioner and against Respondents.” 4. In effect, the learned counsel for the petitioner is challenging the communication dated 10.07.2026 issued by the respondent no.1 to the petitioner wherein the technical bid submitted by the petitioner for parking sites owned by the MCD on monthly license fee basis, was rejected. 5. One of the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner is that 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 27/07/2026 at 15:43:46 except stating that the bid has been rejected, the respondent no.1 does not specify the reasons for rejection. 6. Mr. Tushar Sannu, learned counsel for the respondent no.1 is unable to contest the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. 7. If that be so, we set aside the communication dated 10.07.2026 and direct the respondent no.1 to convey the reasons for rejection of the bid of the petitioner within two days from today. 8. As we have granted two days’ time to the respondent no.1 to convey the reasons of rejection of the petitioner’s bid, the respondent no.1 shall not issue the LOI to the successful parties for the next two days. 9. The petition along with pending application is disposed of but with cost of Rs. 5,000/- to be paid to the petitioner by the respondent no. 1. V. KAMESWAR RAO, J MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA, J JULY 21, 2026/rk 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 27/07/2026 at 15:43:46