Madras High Court
M/S.P.K.Hospitality Services Pvt. Ltd vs Airports Authority Of India on 18 August, 2014
Author: V.Ramasubramanian
Bench: V.Ramasubramanian
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS Dated : 18.08.2014 Coram THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.RAMASUBRAMANIAN W.P.No.20918 of 2014 and M.P.No.1 of 2014 M/s.P.K.Hospitality Services Pvt. Ltd., Garuda House, 142, Upper Govind Nagar, Malad (East) Mumbai - 400 097. ...Petitioner Vs. 1.Airports Authority of India, Rep. by the Airport Director, Chennai Airport, Chennai - 600 027. 2.Airport Director, Chennai Airport,Chennai - 600 027. 3.The Eviction Officer, Chennai Airport,Chennai - 600 027. 4.M/s.Travel Food Services Chennai (Pvt) Ltd., No.1, Rashid Mansim Worli Point, Mumbai - 400 018. ...Respondents PRAYER: This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Mandamus, forbearing the respondents their men agents and representatives from disturbing or impeding in any manner the peaceful use of the premises being the area admeasuring 160 Sq.meters in the Link Building on the Second Floor of the Chennai International Airport Chennai for the restaurant business of the petitioner until the establishment/functioning of the Airport Appellate Tribunal as per Chapter VA of the Airports Authority of India Act, 1994 and till appropriate orders are passed by the Airport Appellate Tribunal in the appeal to be filed by the petitioner against the order dated 10.6.2014 passed by the 3rd respondent. For Petitioner : Mr.Krishna Srinivas for M/s.S.Ramasubramaniam & Associates For Respondents : Mr.R.Parthiban for R1 and R2 Mr.P.R.Raman for R4 O R D E R
The petitioner has come up with the above writ petition, seeking the issue of a writ of mandamus, to forbear the respondents from disturbing or impeding in any manner, the peaceful use of the premises being the area admeasuring 160 sq.meters in the Link Building on the Second Floor of the Chennai International Airport to enable the petitioner to carry on his business, until the establishment of an Airport Appellate Tribunal under law.
2. Heard Mr.Krishna Srinivas, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.R.Parthiban, learned counsel appearing for respondents 1 and 2. Mr.P.R.Raman, learned counsel takes notice for the 4th respondent.
3. The petitioner was awarded a licence, on 17.07.2006 for operating a restaurant at the link building in the second floor of the Chennai Airport. The licence was for a period of five years from 06.09.2006 to 05.09.2011.
4. After the expiry of the period of licence, the petitioner continued to operate the restaurant and also continued to pay the licence fee. Post facto, the first respondent granted renewal upto 31.03.2012, by an order dated 29.12.2011. But it was made clear that the renewal was upto 31.03.2012 or the completion of Expansion or Modernisation whichever is earlier.
5. By a further proceedings, dated 21.03.2012, the licence was renewed upto 30.06.2012 subject to the same condition. Again four renewals were granted by the orders dated 11.07.2012, 09.10.2012, 07.02.2013 and 01.05.2013, for periods respectively upto 30.09.2012, 31.12.2012, 31.3.2013 and 31.07.2013.
6. Thereafter, there was no renewal from 31.07.2013. However, the petitioner did not vacate. But by a letter dated 03.02.2014, the petitioner was directed to vacate by 05.03.2014, giving a notice of a duration of 30 days.
7. Though the petitioner sent a letter of objections, the objections were overruled and the respondents issued a letter on 20.02.2014 confirming the order of eviction. Therefore, the petitioner filed a writ petition in W.P.No.6202 of 2014, challenging the order of eviction. By an order dated 29.04.2014, this Court disposed of the said writ petition, with a direction to the appropriate authority to initiate proceedings for eviction, in accordance with law and pass appropriate orders.
8. In pursuance of the said order, the third respondent issued a show cause notice dated 09.05.2014. There were two hearings first on 21.05.2014 and next on 06.06.2014. Eventually, the third respondent, who is the Eviction Officer, passed an order dated 10.06.2014, directing the petitioner to vacate and hand over possession on or before 11.08.2014. As against the said order, the petitioner has a statutory remedy of appeal to the Airport Appellate Tribunal, under Chapter VA of the Airports Authority of India Act, 1994. But since the Tribunal is not yet constituted, the petitioner has come up with the above writ petition challenging the order dated 10.06.2014 passed by the Eviction Officer.
9. The main contention of the petitioner is that when the statute provides for a remedy of appeal to the Appellate Tribunal and when the Government have not constituted an Appellate Tribunal, the remedy of appeal provided under statute is lost. Therefore, it is claimed by the petitioner that the petitioner should be allowed to hold on.
10. But I do not agree. This is not a case of termination of a licence. This is a case of non-renewal of a licence. The original licence of the petitioner was for a period of five years from 06.09.2006 to 05.09.2011. The licence was renewed from time to time upto 31.07.2013. Thereafter, there were no renewal. In such circumstances, the petitioner cannot contend that the valuable right of appeal has been lost.
11. The next contention of the petitioner is that under Clause 20 of the Licence Agreement, a notice of 180 days is to be given by the Airport Authority of India any time during the period of contract, for the termination before the expiry of licence period without assigning any reason.
12. Clause 20 reads as follows:-
"A Notice of 180 days shall be given by AAI anytime during the period of contract for the termination of the subject Contract before expiry of licence period without assigning any reasons."
13. The grievance of the petitioner is that the notice dated 03.02.2014 calling upon the petitioner to vacate, providing just 30 days' notice is in violation of Clause 20.
14. But the above contention is faulty for two reasons. The first is that Clause 20 would apply only to a case where there is termination of the contract before the expiry of the licence period. This is a case of calling upon the petitioner to vacate, after the expiry of licence period.
15. The second reason as to why the above contention cannot be accepted is that the Eviction Officer, despite not being obliged to give the benefit of Clause 20, allowed the benefit by calculating a period of six months from the date of the original notice and allowed the petitioner to continue upto 11.08.2014. Therefore, I am of the view that the impugned order cannot be faulted and hence, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.
16. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. However, since the materials and equipments of the petitioner will be there in the premises, and the time granted by the Eviction Officer has already expired one week ago, the petitioner is granted time upto 15.09.2014 to take away their materials and handover vacant possession. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
18.08.2014 svki Index : Yes/No Internet : Yes To
1.Airports Authority of India, Rep. by the Airport Director, Chennai Airport, Chennai - 600 027.
2.Airport Director, Chennai Airport,Chennai - 600 027.
3.The Eviction Officer, Chennai Airport,Chennai - 600 027.
4.M/s.Travel Food Services Chennai (Pvt) Ltd., No.1, Rashid Mansim Worli Point, Mumbai - 400 018.
V.RAMASUBRAMANIAN,J.
svki W.P.No.20918 of 2014 18.08.2014