The Delhi High Court ruled on Tuesday that the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) cannot allow the Pacific Metro Mall or the other commercial establishments to provide free parking for visitors.
An order by MCD was set aside by the court which prohibits the mall from levying parking fees, saying that the Unified Building Bylaws for Delhi do not regulate a building’s use after its construction.
A division bench comprising of Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice Amit Mahajan said that the Building Bylaws cover building norms but have no right to monitor the use of buildings after its construction.
The counsel also stated that if buildings comply with the byelaws and are used as permitted, they fulfill the necessary criteria.
The bench however said that 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.
MCD counsel stated that if the mall is permitted to charge parking fees,it would lead to roadside parking and traffic congestion, which the court rejected.
The bench clearly said that authorities have a responsibility to prevent parking in no-parking zones, commercial establishment cannot be interfered by the municipal authority on such grounds.
The Court clearly ordered that it is clearly for the concerned authorities to ensure that vehicles are not parked in no parking zones. Merely because the concerned authorities are finding it difficult to enforce traffic laws is clearly no ground for MCD to intrude into the functioning of a commercial enterprise and insist that parking be provided free of cost.
The matter court concerns to Pacific Metro Mall that challenged a 2020 judgment by a single-judge bench, that upheld the MCD’s order.
In the order, the single judge had remarked that parking areas not included in the Floor Area Ratio (FAR) were for common enjoyment, and occupants were expected to maintain them collectively.
The division bench observed that the building bylaws focused on construction norms and did not address whether the use of spaces generated monetary benefits. It clarified that as long as areas were used for parking, charging fees were not misused.
The court highlighted that the parties did not identify any bylaw allowing MCD to direct the mall to provide free parking. It concluded that the MCD’s order amounted to expropriation without legal authority.
As a result, the court allowed the appeal, setting aside the single-judge’s judgment and the MCD order and affirming the commercial entity’s right to charge parking fees.