AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Kh. Nobin Singh, J
[1] Heard Shri N. Jotendro, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioners in WP(C) No.757 of 2018, WP(C) No.800 of 2018, WP(C) No. 810 of 2018 and WP(C) No.811 of 2018; Shri K. Rabei, learned Advocate appearing for the petitioners in writ petitions, namely WP(C) No.802 of 2018 and WP(C) No.805 of 2018 while Shri Y. Nirmolchand, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the IMC in all the writ petitions and Smt. L. Monomala, learned Government Advocate appearing for the State Government in all the writ petitions.
[2] Since the above writ petitions have arisen out of a similar set of facts, the same are being disposed of by this Court by this common judgment and order.
WP(C) No. 757 of 2018
[3.1] A notice inviting tender dated 31-10-2014 was issued by the Imphal Municipal Corporation (hereinafter referred to as "the Corporation") inviting bids from the interested and eligible private parties for allotment of parking places. After the said tender process being finalised, the petitioner through its Secretary was selected as the successful bidder and was allowed for executing the work of looking after the parking place from Maharani Thong to Chongtham Crematorium @ Rs.2,300/- per day for twelve months excluding Sundays and other days where bandh or general strikes are imposed w.e.f. 01-01-2015. The term of the petitioner was extended vide order dated 10-06-2016 for the same purpose @ Rs.1,500/-per day excluding Sundays and other days.
[3.2] On 11-06-2018, the petitioner through its Secretary, requested the Assistant Municipal Commissioner of the Corporation for extension of the term for another two months and the said representation was not accepted nor was it rejected by the Corporation. A sum of Rs.1,09,500/- was paid by the petitioner on 29-06-2018 and the petitioner has been still managing the parking place without any interruption till the date of filing the representation. As the Corporation failed to notify a fresh NIT for appointment of a new agency for looking after the said parking place, the petitioner has been continuing daily collections from the vehicle owners as is evident from the counterfoil receipts given to the customers.
[3.3] The petitioner learnt from the reliable sources that an order dated 25-07-2018 had been issued by the Mayor of the Corporation appointing Shri L. Dojendra Singh, the Secretary, Office of the Development Organisation, Andro Kendra, Imphal East, Manipur for the management of the parking place on payment of Rs.1,500/- excluding Sundays and other days where bandh and general strikes are imposed w.e.f. 10-08-2018. Being aggrieved by the said order dated 25-07-2018, the instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioner on the inter-alia grounds that the impugned order dated 25-07-2018 issued by the Mayor was illegal in view of the instructions dated 26-03-2018 issued by the Director (MAHUD), Government of Manipur; that while passing the said order dated 25-07-2018, the Mayor had violated the principles of natural justice as the parking place was being managed by the petitioner; that the said order 25-07-2018 was issued by the Mayor in collusion with the private respondent. An affidavit-in-opposition has been filed by the private respondent denying the averments made in the writ petition. It has been specifically denied that the term of appointment of the petitioner had been extended vide order dated 10-06-2016 and that the petitioner has been continuing to look after the said parking place and moreover, after the order dated 10-06-2016 being issued, there was no extension order. The private respondent was temporarily appointed as the agency vide order dated 25-07-2018 issued by the Mayor till the tender process was/is done w.e.f. 10/8/2018. The issuance of the said order dated 25-07-2018 was not illegal in view of the powers and functions of the Chairperson/ Mayor, as provided under the provisions of Section 33 of the Manipur Municipalities Act, 1994. Since the petitioner had not been managing the said parking place, there was no question of violation of principles of natural justice. Since the private respondent had already started functioning as a parking agency vide order 25-07-2018, the petitioner had no business to manage the parking place in the absence of a valid order.
[4] On 20-08-2018, when the matter came up for consideration, this Court while issuing notice to the respondents directed that the status quo as regards the management of the parking place as existing that day, might be maintained till the next date and the same was continued till date.
WP(C) No. 800 of 2018
[5.1] The order dated 04-07-2018 issued by the Mayor of the Corporation is under challenge in this writ petition.
[5.2] In pursuance of the order dated 05-05-2014 issued by the Corporation, the Chairperson vide its order dated 20-05-2015 appointed the North East India Security Service (NEISS) through its Secretary for the management of the parking place i.e. the whole length of Paona Road (from Paona International Market to B.T. Road crossing) @ Rs.5,600/- only per day for twelve months w.e.f. 06-05-2015. On 07-01-2016, the deed of agreement was made between the Corporation and the petitioner through its Secretary whereby the petitioner was appointed for the management, maintenance and collection of parking fee at the public parking area from Johnstone School (Western Side) along the Eastern side of the road leading to State Museum for a sum of Rs.1000/-. Thereafter, the petitioner was appointed by the Mayor vide its order dated 28-04-2017 for the management of the parking place i.e. the whole length of Paona Road (from Paona International Market to B.T. Road crossing) @ Rs.3,000/- only per day as parking fee for another six months w.e.f. 02-05-2017.
[5.3] The petitioner submitted a representation dated 15-05-2018 to the Assistant Commissioner of the Corporation praying for exemption from payment of parking fee for the period from 02-05-2017 to 01-11-2017 for its inability to proceed with the normal schedules owing to general strikes, heavy rains, etc.
[5.4] As the Corporation failed to notify a fresh NIT for appointment of a new agency for looking after the said parking place, the petitioner continued to look after it by making daily collections without any break. The petitioner learnt from the reliable sources that the Mayor of the Corporation issued an order dated 04-07-2018 appointing Shri Y. Shyama Singh, the President of the Unemployed Youth Association (T.U.Y.A.) of Yaiskul, Imphal West for the management of the said parking place without issuing any fresh tender in that regard. Being aggrieved by the said order dated 04-07-2018, the instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioner on the inter-alia grounds that the impugned order dated 04-07-2018 issued by the Mayor was illegal in view of the instructions dated 26-03-2018 issued by the Director (MAHUD), Government of Manipur; that while passing the said order dated 04-07-2018, the Mayor had violated the principles of natural justice as the parking place was being managed by the petitioner; that the said order 04-07-2018 was issued by the Mayor in collusion with the private respondent.
[6] On 05-09-2018, when the matter came up for consideration, this Court while issuing notice to the respondents directed that the status quo as regards the management of the parking place as existing that day, might be maintained till the next date and the same was continued till date.
[7] An affidavit has been filed by the private respondent denying the averments made in the writ petition. It has been stated that the term of appointment of the petitioner had already expired on 01-11-2017 and the counterfoil receipts which are annexed in the writ petition, were self made ones which could not be treated as valid documents in the absence of a valid order of appointment. After the expiry of the term of the petitioner, the Mayor of the Corporation issued the order dated 04-07-2018 in favour of the private respondent and since then, the private respondent has been managing the said parking place till date and therefore, the question of giving an opportunity of being heard, did not arise at all. Since the petitioner collected huge amount of money from the general public without any valid order, the Chairperson of the Finance Committee of the Corporation vide its letter dated 13-09-2018 requested the police to take up necessary action against him. The impugned order was issued in favour of the private respondent by the Mayor of the Corporation in exercise of its power conferred under Section 33 of the Manipur Municipality Act, 1994.
WP(C) No. 802 of 2018
[8.1] By this writ petition, the petitioners have prayed for issuing a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ to direct the respondents to allow the petitioners to continue to be the Agency(s) for the management of the parking place allotted vide NIT letter dated 31-10-2014 and the result of OT dated 19-12-2014 by restraining the Corporation from appointing any other person/agency against the parking place allotted to the petitioners.
[8.2] The Corporation issued a notice inviting tender dated 31-10-2014 inviting bids from eligible private parties for allotment of parking places in Imphal Municipal Areas. The petitioners submitted their bids in response to the said notice dated 31-10-2014 and an open tender was conducted on 08-12-2014 and the result thereof was declared on 19-12-2014 by the Executive Officer, Imphal Municipal Corporation. The petitioners being the successful bidders signed the terms of contract by depositing Earnest Money Deposit and thereafter, the Executive Officer of the Corporation issued an order dated 07-01-2015 appointing the petitioner No.1 as the agency for the management of the parking place in front of (eastern road side) of Family Welfare line from B.T. Road to Old Assembly crossing @ Rs. 4,150/- per day for twelve months and the term of the petitioner was extended from time to time with the last term being extended vide order dated 04-07-2018 issued by the Mayor w.e.f. 22-06-2018 till the tender process was/is done. Similar is the case with the petitioner Nos.2, 3 & 4 who have been appointed as the agencies for the management of the parking places i.e. Eastern Road Side of NH-39 from AG Office; the Southern Gate of Transport Director to Old Rifles Shooting Range, DC Bunglow Road and Job Centre and SBI Secretariat to General Post Office @ Rs.1,000/- per day for twelve months; the parking place i.e. Kalibari Bye-Lane crossing to the end of Khuyathong road western side @ Rs.450 for twelve months and the parking plae i.e. Eastern back side of Eikhoigee Hotel to Northern side of Leima Shopping @ Rs.1705 per day for twelve months respectively. The petitioners have been rendering their services as the parking management agencies without any complaint from any quarter. In the meanwhile, it was learnt by them from the reliable sources that pursuant to the Traffic Regulation and Parking Committee in its meeting held on 29-08-2018, the authority of the Corporation would be issuing NIT shortly for allotment of parking places and in case the appointment of any other person through NIT is made, their interest will be affected as they have incurred a huge amount of money towards EMD as security deposits and payment of wages.
[8.3] No counter on behalf of the respondents was filed and therefore, the averments made in the writ petition shall be deemed to have been admitted by them in terms of the various decisions rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
WP(C) No. 805 of 2018
[9.1] By the instant writ petition, the petitioners have prayed for issuing a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ to direct the respondents to allow them to continue to be the agencies for parking management till the tender process was/is done in respect of the parking places allotted to them.
[9.2] In order to maintain proper parking of vehicles in and around the Imphal city, the Corporation has been outsourcing parking management to private agencies and on an application submitted by the petitioners, the petitioner No.1 was temporarily appointed as the agency for parking management vide order dated 04-07-2018 issued by the Mayor in respect of the parking place i.e. from M.G. Avenue Road Eastern side Police Check Post upto IUCB Ltd. @ Rs.400/- per day for twelve months. Likewise, the petitioner No.2 was temporarily appointed as the agency vide order dated 04-07-2018 issued by the Mayor of the Corporation as agency for parking management in respect of the parking place i.e. from the Major Khul Children Park Leirak Machin to front of PWD and LIC Office, Khuyathong @ Rs.1300/- per day for twelve months and the petitioner No.3 was temporarily appointed as the agency vide order dated 04-07-2018 for parking management in respect of the parking place i.e. Sun Medicos Pharmacy to Diamond Corner, Paona Bazar @ Rs.1500/- per day for twelve months w.e.f. 12-07-2018.
[9.3] The petitioners have been rendering their services as parking management agencies by paying fees regularly and without any complaint from any quarter. The petitioners have an apprehension that the authority might issue NIT at any time as per the proceeding of the Traffic Regulations and Parking Committee in its meeting held on 29-08-2018 for taking up tender process. If it is done, it will cause a great loss and injury to the petitioners. Hence, the instant writ petition has been filed by them. An affidavit on behalf of respondent Nos.4, 5 & 6 was filed stating therein that the writ petition being WP(C) No.800 of 2018, WP(C) No.810 of 2018 and WP(C) No.811 of 2018 had been filed wherein this Court had passed interim orders for maintaining status quo as regards the management of the parking places. The Mayor of the Corporation issued an order dated 11-09-2018 directing the police to take action and by virtue of the order dated 11-09-2018, the private respondent could not enter into the areas of the parking places which have been forcibly occupied with the help of police by the petitioners. As per the letter dated 26-03-2018 issued by the Under Secretary (MAHUD), Government of Manipur, the Mayor could not have issued any such order.
WP(C) No. 810 of 2018
[10.1] The order dated 25-07-2018 issued by the Mayor of the Corporation is under challenge in this writ petition.
[10.2] The Corporation issued an NIT dated 19-12-2014 for inviting bids for the parking places i.e. Opposite Roadside of SBI, Old Building to IUCB Gate, MG Avenue and after the tender process being completed, Shri Laishram Gandhi Singh, Secretary, Hilly Foundation of Thongju Nameirakpam Leikai, Imphal was allotted the said parking place vide order dated 31-12-2014 issued by the Executive Officer, Corporation.
[10.3] The Mayor of the Corporation vide its order dated 28-04-2017 appointed the All Manipur Security Service (AMSS) through its Secretary i.e. the present petitioner for the parking management of the parking place i.e. from the stretch of SBI, MG Avenue to Jalan Provision @ Rs.2,200/- per day for six months w.e.f. 05-05-2017. The petitioners submitted a representation dated 15-05-2018 to the Assistant Commissioner of the Corporation for grant of exemption from payment of fees for seventy one days for the period from 05-05-2017 to 04-11-2017. The petitioners had been continuing to render their services.
[10.4] It was learnt by them from the reliable sources that vide order dated 25-07-2018 issued by the Mayor of Corporation, the parking place i.e. MGT building to the northern side upto Police Check post and MG Avenue northern side Majorkhul crossing to SBI Bank was allotted to Shri R.K. Premichand Singh, Secretary, Save Manipur, The Sissy Approach for Volunteer Esteem of Keisamthong, Imphal West. Being aggrieved by the said order dated 25-07-2018, the instant writ petition has been filed by them on the inter-alia grounds that the order dated 25-07-2018 issued by the Mayor of the Corporation was contrary to the order dated 26-03-2018 issued by the Under Secretary (MAHUD) to the effect that all official documents shall be signed by the Municipal Commissioner; that while issuing the order dated 25-07-2018, the principles of natural justice had been violated and that the order dated 25-07-2918 was illegal and liable to be quashed. An affidavit has been filed by the private respondent denying the averments made in the writ petition. It has been stated that the term of appointment of the petitioner had already expired on 01-11-2017 and the counterfoils receipts filed along with the writ petition, were made which could not be treated as valid documents. The Mayor of the Corporation issued the order dated 25-07-2018 appointing the private respondent as the parking agency and since then, the private respondent has been managing the parking place till date and therefore, the question of giving opportunity of being heard did not arise at all. Since the petitioners continued to collect huge amount of money without any authority of law, the Mayor informed the police to take action against them.
WP(C) No. 811 of 2018
[11.1] By the instant writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for issuing a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ to quash and set aside the order dated 04-07-2018 issued by the Mayor of the Corporation.
[11.2] In pursuance of the Corporation in its meeting dated 19-12-2014 inviting bids for allotment of the parking places i.e. in front of PWD to LIC Office, Khuyathong, the order dated 26-12-2014 was issued by the EO allotting the place to Shri Konthoujam Sharat Singh, Secretary, Khurai Polo Club (KCP) @ Rs.3,200/- per day for twelve months w.e.f. 01-01-2015 which was extended for another twenty four months w.e.f. 02-01-2016 vide order dated 25-04-2016 issued by the EO of the Corporation.
[11.3] The Executive Officer issued the order dated 07-04-2017 by which the parking place was allotted to the petitioner, Kangla Security Service through its Secretary @ Rs.1000/- per day for six months. The petitioner submitted a representation dated 15-05-2018 for exemption from payment of fee for the parking place for sixty nine days for the period from 10-04-2017 to 08-10-2017. Since the Corporation failed to issue a fresh notice, the petitioner has been continuing to render its services. However, it was learnt by it that the Mayor vide its order dated 04-07-2018 allotted the said parking place in favour of Shri O. Ashok Meitei, Secretary, Prava Foundation (Peculiar Response Against Vulnerable Action) without issuing fresh tender. Being aggrieved by the said order dated 04-07-2018, the instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioners contending inter-alia that the said order was in violation of the order dated 26-03-2018 issued by the Under Secretary (MAHUD), Government of Manipur; that while issuing the said order, the petitioner was not given an opportunity of being heard and that the said order was illegal and is liable to be quashed and set aside.
[11.4] An affidavit has been filed by the private respondent denying the averments made in the writ petition. It has been stated that as per the order dated 07-04-2017, the term of appointment of the petitioners was only for six months and therefore, the private respondent was temporarily appointed as the parking agency vide order dated 04-07-2018 issued by the Mayor. Since the petitioners continued to collect huge amount of money from the general public, the Chairperson of the Finance Committee of the Corporation informed the police to take action against them.
[12] The facts of the above writ petitions are not exactly the same but are almost identical. Some of the facts which are common in all these writ petitions, are that the Corporation is a body constituted under the provisions of Section 3 of the Manipur Municipality Act, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act, 1994"). For the purpose of the management and collection fees at various parking places within the Corporation areas, the tenders are floated, from time to time, by the Corporation for allotment of the parking places to the eligible and interested parties. From the perusal of the facts and circumstances as narrated in the writ petitions, it is seen that the last tender was floated in the year, 2014 and in consequence thereof, the parking places were allotted to the successful bidders including some of the petitioners. The term of the allotment was for six months or a year and in some cases, after the expiry of the period of allotment, it was extended for some more months. It is further seen from the facts of the above writ petitions that after the expiry of the terms of allotment, the Mayor of the Corporation issued orders allotting parking places in favour of the private respondents. Such orders issued by the Mayor of the Corporation are under challenge in some of the above writ petitions. While issuing notice to the respondents, this Court had directed that the status quo as regards the management of the parking places as existing that day, might be maintained till the next date but the same were continued till date. However, the issue relating to the status quo need not be gone into, as the above matters are being considered by this Court for final disposal on merit.
[13] The above writ petitions can be categorized into two groups - one, challenging the power and functions of the Mayor of the Corporation while issuing the said orders dated 04-07-2018 and 25-07-2018 and two, praying for allowing the petitioners to continue with the present arrangement for management of the parking places. The subject matter in issue, involved in the first category, relates to the interpretation of the provisions of Section 12M of the Act, 1994 as amended vide Notification dated 16-03-2016 which reads as under:
12M. It shall be the function of the Mayor-
(a) to preside, unless prevented by reasonable cause over all meetings of Municipal Corporation and subject to the provision of the bye-law for the time being in force, to regulate the conduct of business at such meetings;
(b) to watch over the financial and executive administration of the Municipal Corporation and perform such executive function as may be allotted to him by or under this Act and rules or bye-laws framed thereunder;
(c) to exercise supervisory and executive control over acts and duties of all officers and employees of the Municipal Corporation, as the case may be, in matters respecting their executive functions and the accounts and records of the Municipal Corporation;
(d) to direct, in case of emergency, the execution or stoppage of any work or doing of any act which requires the sanction of the Municipal Corporation and the immediate executing or doing of which is, in his opining necessary for the service or safety of the public, and the expenses incurred in the execution of such work or doing of such act shall be paid from Municipal Fund.
Provided that-
(a) he shall not act under clause (d) in contravention of any order of the Municipal Corporation prohibiting the execution of any particular work or the doing of any particular act; and
(b) he shall report forthwith the action taken under clause (d) and the reasons thereof to the Municipal Corporation at its next meeting."
After the amendment of the Act, 1994 being made vide Notification dated 16-03-2016, Section 33 which pertains to Nagar Panchayat or the Council, is no longer applicable to the Municipal Corporation and therefore, the contention of the respondents referring to Section 33 of the Act, 1994 appears to be inappropriate and has no substance at all.
[14] As has been stated hereinabove, the Corporation is a body constituted under the provisions of Section 3 of the Act, 1994. The Corporation being a legal entity, any decision taken by it is a collective one and it shall be based on its resolution. No one or for that matter, the Mayor or any other councilor can do anything on behalf of the Corporation without his or her exercise of power being backed by the resolution of the Corporation. The powers and functions to be performed by the Mayor or any other authority of the Corporation, are prescribed in the Act itself. So far as the Mayor is concerned, its powers and functions are specified and enumerated in Section 12M of the Act. On perusal of the provisions of Section 12M of the Act, it is seen that the functions of the Mayor are to preside over the meeting of the Corporation to regulate the conduct of business as such meeting; to watch over the financial and executive administration of the Corporation and perform such executive functions as may be allotted to him by or under this Act and rules or bye-laws framed thereunder; to exercise supervisory and executive control over acts and duties of all officers and employees of the Corporation and to direct, in case of emergency, the execution or stoppage of any work or doing of any act which requires the sanction of the Corporation and the immediate executing or doing of which is, in his opining necessary for the service or safety of the public, and the expenses incurred in the execution of such work or doing of such act shall be paid from the Corporation. The functions allotted to the Mayor are supervisory in nature except the one mentioned in sub-section (b) thereof by way of the expression "perform such executive functions as may be allotted to him by or under this Act and rules or bye-laws framed thereunder". This function of the Mayor is not absolute but conditional and in other words, the Mayor can perform executive function provided the same is allotted to him by or under the Act and the rules or bye-laws framed thereunder. In the present case, the short question that calls for consideration by this Court is as to whether the power to issue the impugned orders is conferred upon or allotted to the Mayor by the provisions of the Act and the rules made thereunder. Only Section 12M of the Act enumerates the functions to be performed by the Mayor but there is no any specific provision therein that the Mayor can issue such orders. Any rule being framed or made authorizing the Mayor, in this regard, under the Act has not been brought to the notice of this Court by any of the counsel appearing for the parties. In the absence of such provision in the Act and the rules made thereunder authorizing the Mayor to issue the impugned orders, this Court is of the considered view that the issuance of the impugned orders by the Mayor is illegal and without any authority of law. Consequently, the impugned orders issued by him are bad in law and are liable to be quashed and set aside.
[15] It is not in dispute that the appointments of eligible and interested parties for the management of the parking places within the municipal areas are to be made by the Corporation through the tender and the Corporation had been doing that in the past except during the last few years, because of which the present controversy appears to have arisen between the parties. It is the Corporation which has to take a decision based on its resolution and after a decision being taken by it, the same shall be executed by the Commissioner of the Corporation. In this regard, Section 12P is relevant which specifically provides that there shall be a Municipal Commissioner who shall be the Executive Officer of the Corporation. He shall function as the Secretary of the Corporation and all other officers and employees of the Corporation shall be subordinate to him. In other words, it is the Commissioner who shall execute the decision of the Corporation and not the Mayor who also can perform certain executive functions only when the same is authorized or allotted to him by law.
[16] So far as the second category is concerned, the prayer of the petitioners is that since they have been appointed vide impugned orders issued by the Mayor for the management of certain parking places as mentioned therein, they may be allowed to continue to do it till the new appointments are made by the Corporation through the tender. In this regard and in order to consider their prayer, this Court will be required to peruse the orders issued by the Mayor of the Corporation. On perusal of the order dated 25-07-2018 issued by the Mayor, it is seen that it is nowhere mentioned therein that it was issued by him pursuant to a resolution of the Corporation nor was any provision of law being referred to therein, under which it was issued by him. In other words, the Mayor did not indicate in the order the provision of law by which it was issued by him. Similar is the case with the order dated 04-07-2018 issued by the Mayor. The wordings of these two orders are almost identical, for the reason that both the orders are issued stating that the private respondents were appointed as the agencies for the management of their respect parking places and that their appointments would remain valid till the tender process would be done by the Corporation. This shows that the terms of the appointment are not indefinite or unlimited and they will come to an end, when new persons/ agencies are appointed by the Corporation through the tender. Therefore, to float tenders by the Corporation is a must.
[17] One aspect which is relevant and needs to be considered by this Court is the oral submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the Corporation during the course of hearing that a tender has already been floated some time back but the same has not yet been finalized by the Corporation. In other words, the tender process has been initiated but remains incomplete. It is not known to this Court as to why the tender process has been kept incomplete. Had the tender process been completed in time, there was no need of going into the merit of the case by this Court and the controversy could have been resolved earlier. Accordingly, the counsel appearing for the Corporation was directed to file an affidavit stating therein the details about the tender process. But no such affidavit appears to have been filed by the Corporation with the result that this Court is not aware of anything about it.
[18] For the reasons stated hereinabove, the writ petitions being WP(C) No.757 of 2018; WP(C) No.800 of 2018; WP(C) No.810 of 2018 and WP(C) No.811 of 2018 are allowed and consequently, the impugned orders dated 04-07-2018 and 25-07-2108 issued by the Mayor of the Corporation are quashed and set aside, while the WP(C) No.802 of 2018 and WP(C) No. 805 of 2018 are disposed of with the following directions:
(a) The Corporation shall complete the process of the tender alleged to have been initiated by it within a reasonable time, preferably within three months from today;
(b) If the process of the tender has not yet been initiated by the Corporation, the same shall be initiated and completed within four months from today;
(c) Till the completion of the process of tender as aforesaid either under the direction (a) or (b) above, the Corporation itself may manage the parking places through its officers and employees; or alternatively, the Corporation may allow both the petitioners and the private respondents, as an interim measure, to manage the parking places by sharing the period of time, equally, which the Corporation may take while completing the tender process.
There shall be no order as to costs.