Madras High Court
Cosmopolitan Club vs Government Of Tamil Nadu And Ors. on 13 October, 1999
Equivalent citations: AIR 2000 MADRAS 120, (2000) 1 MAD LW 281
Author: P.D. Dinakaran
Bench: P.D. Dinakaran
ORDER P.D. Dinakaran, J.
1. The petitioner seeks a Writ of Certified Mandamus to call for the record relating to the order of the first respondent in G.O.Ms. No. 278 Revenue (LD II. 1) Department dated 4-6-1999, quash the same and to direct the respondents to grant renewal of lease in favour of the petitioner in respect of land in T.S. No. 2. Block No. 8. Government Farm Village, Mylapore Triplicane Taluk Chennai.
2. The admitted facts of the case are stated as follows :
An extent of 65.09 acres of land located in Government Farm Village in Mambalam Guindy Taluk, Chennai District, was granted under licence to the petitioner-club, for the purpose of Golf course, intheyear 1933. Out of the said 65.09 acres, 33 cents were converted into lease , by order of the first respondent dated 27-7-1937. Thereafter, another extent of 1.77 acres of land were granted on licence to the petitioner-club, in the year 1943 and a further, extent of 10.84 acres were also granted on licence, to the petitioner-club, in the year 1945. The entire extent of 77-70 acres were subsequently converted as a grant under lease. By G.O. Ms. No. 4696, Revenue Department dated 27-12-1956, the lease was renewed for a period of ten years from 1-7-1956 with annual rent of Rs. 15/- per acre. Again, the said lease was renewed upto 30-6-1996 for annual payment of Rs. 5,800/- for the entire extent by G.O.Ms. No. 3189, Revenue Department dated 9-11-1966. which reads as follows :
ABSTRACT Revenue Land Madras South West Taluk Government Farm Village S. Nos. 170 FIA etc. to the Cosmopolitan Club, Madras --Renewal Sanctioned.
REVENUE DEPARTMENT G.O.Ms. No. 3189 Dated the 9th Nov. 1966 G.O.Ms. No. 1494 Revenue dated 27-7-1937 G.O.Ms. No. 4696 Revenue dated 27-12-1956 From the Collector of Madras Letter No. A3. 22317/66 dated 23-5-1966 From the Cosmopolitan Club, Madras Petition dated 13-5-1966 From the Board of Revenue Ref. No. B4 4084/61-1 dated 4-7-1966 From the Board of Revenue Ref. No. B2 2040/66-10 dated 21-9-1966.
ORDER The Government have carefully considered the commendations of the Collector of Madras and the Board of Revenue contained in their reports third, fifth and sixth read above and accept generally their recommendations as far as the renewal of the lease of the lands in question is concerned but consider their recommendation for the reductions of the lease rent for the land cannot be accepted. They also consider that in view of the situation of the lands in question right in the heart of the city, the prevailing market value of land, the financial position of the Club audits members, the very nominal extra charge now being collected from the Golf Members of the Club, the very minute fraction of the commercial rent charged till now etc. where (sic) is every justification for enhancing the lease rent.
2. The Government therefore, sanction the renewal of the lease of an extent of 0.33 acre in No. 1/1H2 D1 of Government Farm Village, Madras, sanctioned in G.O.Ms. No. 1494 Revenue dated 27-7-1937 and of an extent of 77.37 acres in S.Nos. 1/F1A, 1/ 1H2, 1/1H2B1/H2B, 1/1G20 and JIP of the same village sanctioned in G.O.Ms. No. 4696, Revenue dated 27-12-1956 for the period from the date of their expiry till 27-12-1956 for the period of from the date of their expiry till 30-6-1996 in payment of a lease rent of Rs. 5,800/- (Rupees five thousand and eight hundred only) per annum for the entire extent and subject to the same terms and conditions before and subject to the additional conditions that further renewal the lease shall be at option of the Government and that the Government reserve to themselves the right to revise the lease rent at the end of every five years.
(BY ORDER OF THE GOVERNOR) K.S. SIVASUBRAMAN1AM Secretary to Government."
Thus, the lease of entire extent of 77.70 acres of land in Survey Nos. 1/1FA, 1/1H2, 1/1H2B1/H2B 1/1G20 and JIP of the said village, expired on 30-6-1996.
3. The following clauses of the deed of grant entered in pursuance of the G.O.Ms. No. 4696, Revenue dated 27-12-1956 and 9-11-1966, reads as follows :
"The Governor of Madras hereby grants the land described in the Schedule below to an address of the grantee. The Cosmopolitan Club. Madras for temporary occupation for a period of Thirty (30 years) years commencing from 1-7-1966 (date, month and year) subject to the following terms and conditions to which the aforesaid grantee has agreed.
(1).....
(2) In the event of such cancellation of the grant, the grantee shall not be entitled to compensation for any loss caused to him by the cancellation.
(3) to (10) .....
(11) The grantee shall not except (as) is provided in condition (s) raise any buildings, fences or structures of a permanent or temporary character on the land without the previous written sanction of the Collector (12) The grantee shall maintain the said land in a clean and sanitary condition to the satisfaction of the Government and shall also maintain the structures, if any erected thereon as aforesaid, in good and substantial repair to the satisfaction of the Collector.
(13) (a) The Government reserve themselves the right to all sandalwood trees and their branches arid roots which exist at the time of grant (which are described in the schedule attached) as well as those which may grow subsequently on the lands granted and the Government be at liberty to cut or dig out any such trees or their roots and branches and remove them from the land in question and dispose of them at their pleasure. The grantee shall not be benefited to cut or remove them or cause them to be cut or removed without the permission of the Collector.
(b) The grantee shall take all reasonable measures to the satisfaction of the Collector for the protection of the sandalwood trees from theft or damages and for the careful protection of the immature trees growing on the land.
(c) The grantee shall take steps to see that the marks made by the Officers of the Government on the sandalwood trees are preserved and are not tampered with and
(d) In the event of infringement of or failure to observe any of the conditions mentioned in (a) or (b) or (c) above, the grantee shall pay to the Government such compensation as is determined by the Collector for any loss or damage caused by any such infringement or failure on his part. The Government shall also be at liberty to cancel the grant or re-enter on the land, and the whole land thereupon shall vest absolutely in the Government. In that case, the grantee shall not be entitled to any compensation whatever.
Note : The lands are granted in the districts noted below, the condition(s) (a) to
(d) above relating to the preservation of sandalwood trees should be scored out. Chingleput, Tanjore, Malbar (excluding Wynade Taluk).
(14) to (16) ----
(17) The grantee shall, on the termination or revocation of this grant, restore the said tand to the Government in as good a condition as is consistent with the foregoing conditions.
(18)(19) The Government may revoke the grants wholly or in part, if the same specified in condition (5) above or any part thereof shall remain unpaid for 15 days after they have become payable whether formally demanded or not, or if the grantee shall have broken any of the conditions of the grant herein mentioned and assume control or otherwise dispose of all or any part of the land and any buildings, fences and structure thereon and the grantee shall not be entitled to any compensation therefor.
NOTE : In the case of grant by Tahsildar condition (19) should be recast as follows: 'The Grant hereby given may be revoked by the Government or the Board of Revenue without notice in an emergency (the Government or the Board of Revenue being the sole Judge of the emergency) but without any prejudice to any right of action or remedy of the Government in respect of any antecedent breach of any of the foregoing conditions. The grantee shall not in case of such revocation of termination, be entitled to any compensation in respect of any structures, on the land or any other improvements effect by him to the land or for the loss caused for the interruption of his occupation but he may within such time as may be allowed by the Government or the Board of Revenue, as the case may be in that behalf remove such structures."
(20) -----
(21) The grant hereby given may be revoked by the Collector acting on behalf of the Governor of Madras after giving one month's notice in writing -- The grantee shall not, in case of such revocation or termination, be entitled to any compensation in respect of any structures on the land or of any other improvements effected by the Grantee to the land or for the loss caused by the interruption of his occupation by (sic) he may before the revocation or termination of the grant Lakes effect or if the grant is revoked without notice within such time as may be allowed by the Collector in that behalf, remove such structures.
(22) The Grant includes all rights, casements and appurtenances, belonging to the land or reputed to belong to it or usually held or enjoyed with it. The existing and customary rights of Government and public inroads and paths and rivers, streams and channels, running through or bounding, the land are however, reserved and are in no way affected by the Grant.
(23) In the event of termination of the grant under condition (19) or (21) the Government shall be at liberty to levy proportionate rental up to the date of such termination.
(24)------------
(25) In any dispute or differences shall at any time hereinafter arise, between the Government or their offices on the one part and the grantee, as to the rights duties or liabilities of either party in respect of any matter or thing relating to or arising out of the grant or the construction or the meaning of all or any of the provisions herein contained, the said dispute or difference shall be referred for settlement to arbitration of the Collector, the same being of the District and his decision shall be final."
4. When the petitioner-club, by letter dated 13-12-1995, requested the Government to renew the lease for a further period of 30 years from 1-7-1996, the Tamil Nadu Golf Federation, viz,, the fifth respondent, with a proposal to bring the Golf course to the international standard, also made a similar request to the Government to lease the said land to them. In pursuance of the said representation of the fifth respondent federation, the third respondent, by show cause notice dated 8-7-1996, gave an opportunity to the petitioner-club to submit its objection within fifteen days from the date of the said notice, against the proposal of transfer of lease in favour of the fifth respondent. The petitioner-club, by letter dated 19-7-1996. objected the proposal of transferring the lease in favour of the fifth respondent and thereafter sent another representation to the first respondent on 22-7-1996, requesting the Government to extend the lease in favour of the petitioner-club for another thirty years, in the interest of sports and to maintain lung space in the city of Madras instead of considering the transfer of lease in favour of the fifth respondent. The petitioner-club claimed that it has spent lakhs of rupees for converting the land into beautiful Golf course with greens and fairways and planted thousand trees all around: Golf course started with nine holes has now been developed into eighteen holes, it has constructed the compound wall and contributed much for the development and maintenance of the Golf course for over sixty years. On the other hand, it is contended that the fifth respondent-federation has been newly formed by a few members, with vested interest, and therefore, there is no merit in its request for change of lease in its favour as against the claim of the age old petitioner-club as a matter of right, for the renewal of lease, on legitimate expectation.
5. It appears that the Government, in the light of the objections and representation of the petitioner -club dated 19-7-1996 and 22-7-1996, with an intention to develop the Golf course as one of the best known Golf courses in the world and in order to have an independent expert opinion, requested Cdr. K.S. Randhawa, the Secretary Service Sports Control Board, Armed Force Headquarters, New Delhi, to visit the Golf course at Chennai and to make appropriate recommendations. Cdr. K.S. Randhawa visited the Golf Course, Chennai on 6-1-1997 and submitted a report to that effect on 8-1-1997. wherein he had observed that the maintenance of the Golf course, Chennai, by the petitioner-club is inadequate; improvements made therein are insufficient and the infrastructural facilities available do not satisfy the international standard. As no notice of inspection of Cdr. Randhawa was given to the petitioner-club , the petitioner club, by its letter dated 12-3-1997. objected the finding of Cdr. Randhawa that the Golf Course lacks maintenance, and claimed the renewal of lease, on legitimate expectation, quoting the assurance of the Hon'ble Chief Minister on the Floor of the Tamil Nadu Assembly on 10-8-1996, and also requested the Government to renew the lease for another thirty years from 1-7-1996, without reference to the said report of Cdr. Randhawa dated 8-1-997.
6. However, by letter dated 3-4-1997, the petitioner-club was informed that the Government proposed to grant extension of lease of the Golf course for a term of thirty years from 1-7-1996 in favour of the petitioner-club, subject to the conditions in the said letter dated 3-4-1997. which reads as follows :
"From Thiru P.S. Pandyan, I.A.S. Secretary to Government To The Hony. Secretary Cosmopolitan Club 63, Anna Salai Chennai-600 002.
Sir, Sub : Land -- Lease -- Chennai District --Mylapore'-Triplicane Taluk -- Government Farm Village -- T.S. No. 2, Block 8 etc. Renewal of lease -- Regarding.
Ref: Your letter dated 19-1-1996 and the Letter received on 18-3-1997.
Government have examined the request for renewal of lease in favour of Cosmopolitan Club.
2. Government are of the view that the improvement so far made towards the promotion of Golf Course are Inadequate and that the infrastructural facilities now available in the Golf Course do not cope with international standards. No provision has been made in the budget of the Club for the improvement of the Golf Course.
3. Government consider that it would be proper to associate the Golfers also in the management of the Court, so as to promote the game and for optimum utilisation of the Golf Course.
4. Under the circumstances, the Government propose to grant extension of lease of the Golf Course for a term of 30 years from 1-7-1996 in favour of the Cosmopolitan Club, Chennai, subject to the following conditions :
(i) An empowered Governing Council which will comprise of members from the Cosmopolitan Club, the Tamil Nadu Golf Federation and the Government of Tamil Nadu in equal numbers shall be constituted for the total management of the Golf Club.
(ii) The lease rent payable will be decided and communicated in due course.
5. I am directed to request you to -- your consent to the above proposals of Government within fifteen days of receipt of this letter."
7. Aggrieved by condition No. 1 stipulated in letter dated 3-4-1997, the petitioner-club challenged the said condition in W.P. No. 9043 of 1997 on the ground that the same is without Jurisdiction, an outcome of total non application of mind, tainted with mala fide and contrary to the doctrine of legitimate expectation.
8. In the saidW.P.No. 9043 of 1997, the petitioner-club contended that the first respondent had no authority to impose a condition to grant lease by proposing to appoint the Governing Council comprising the members of the club, fifth respondent herein, as well as the representatives of the first respondent in equal numbers, for the total management of the Golf Course; such an attempt was nothing but an exploitation of a bargaining among unequals; violates the principles of fair play and reasonableness, it would amount to an interference in the internal administration of the petitioner-club, registered under the Companies Act and contrary to Section 25 read with Section 388B(5) of the Companies Act: the proposal to transfer the lease from the petitioner-club to the fifth respondent federation was unjustified and when there was a great need for promoting the Golf sports in the State and popularising the same among the youngsters, the delay in granting the renewal of lease was unreasonable. However, the petitioner-club had agreed that it might be a different case, if, the Government thought it fit to restore the land for themselves, but where there was no such intention on the part of the Government, it was just and reasonable to renew the lease in favour of the petitioner-club instead of transferring the same in favour of the fifth respondent federation.
9. It may be noted that the fourth respondent-association and the fifth respondent federation were not parties in the above W.P. No. 9043 of 1997 and the respondents 1 and 3 herein alone were arrayed as respondents 1 to 3 in W.P. No. 9043 of 1997.
10. The Respondents 1 to 2 herein contested W.P. No. 9043 of 1997 on the ground that the lease was not statutory, but purely contractual in nature, and therefore, could not be enforced by a Writ of Mandamus; lease was governed under Sections 2 and 3 of the Government Grants Act, 1895, which exclude the application of provision of Transfer of Property Act, 1882; grant of renewal of lease was neither automatic nor a matter of right, in view of the fact that the lease in question came to an end on 30-6-1996 as there was no perpetual lease; renewal of the lease was purely at the option of the Government, and therefore, the Government was entitled to take a decision at their own discretion, whether to grant the lease in favour of the petitioner-club or to take over the land themselves; the Government was entitled to impose such conditions/restrictions as they desire in the matter of grant of lease of Government lands and if such conditions/restrictions were not acceptable, the proposal dated 3-4-1997 itself would not be fructified, and therefore, the writ petition was premature. The Government also expressed their stand that they intend to develop the Golf course as one of the best-known Golf courses in the world and explained that only with the above object, requested Cdr. K.S. Randhawa to visit the Golf course and to submit his recommendations; and that, taking note of the above recommendations of Cdr. K.S. Randhawa, the Government proposed to consider the renewal of lease subject to the conditions, of which, condition No. 1 was relating to the Constitution of the Governing Council of the Golf course. In any event, the petitioner-club was given an opportunity before offering the said proposal for renewal of lease, by proceedings dated 3-4-1997, which was the subject-matter in W.P. No. 9043 of 1997.
11. In the light of the above rival contentions, this Court framed three issues, while disposing W.P. No. 9043 of 1997, by order dated 7-12-1998, viz..
(i) Whether the writ petition was not maintainable since it involved determination of contractual obligations between the parties?
(ii) Whether condition No. 1 relating to the Constitution of the Governing Council is valid in law or oppose the principles of natural justice being-arbitrary?
(iii) Whether the petitioner was entitled for a direction for renewal of lease?
12. For the preliminary objection raised by the respondents that the writ petition was not maintainable as the transaction was entirely in the realm of contract, placing reliance on the decisions in Jasjeet Films (Pvt.) Ltd. v. Delhi Development Authority, AIR 1980 Delhi S3. Rauhakrishna Aggarwal v. State of Bihar, , Edward Kenventers (Successors) P. Ltd. v. Union of India, AIR 1983 Delhi 376 and that no Mandamus would lie to enforce a private right or a contractual right as held in Radhakrishna Aggarwal v. State of Bihar, , Bihar Eastern Gangetic Fisherman Co-operative Society Ltd. v. Sipahi Singh, , this Court, by order dated 7-12-1998 in the said W.P. No. 9043 of 1997, held that the writ petition would lie as the petitioner-club was challenging the action of the public authority on the ground that such action was contrary to the principles of natural justice; and that, even in the matter of contracts, the respondents could not exercise their discretion arbitrarily, at their sweet will, as held in Ramana v. I. A. Authority of India, . It was also held that every activity of the Government has a public element in it, and it must therefore be informed with reasons and guided by public interest and as such act of the Government shall be tested on the touchstone of reasonableness and public interest, as held in Kasturl Lal v. State of J. and K., ; that the Mandamus could not be denied on the ground that the duty sought to be enforced was not imposed by a statute, as held to Shri Anandl Mukta Sadguru S.M.V.S.J.M.S. Trust v. V. R. Rudani, ; that to enforce a duty by Mandamus, the public duty need not necessarily be imposed by a statute, as observed by Professor D. Smith on Judicial Review of Administrative Action; that the altitude of Article 226 of the Constitution of India is wide enough to correct the manifest injustice or any action opposed to law as held in Kulchhinder Singh v. Hardayal Singh, ; that the Government have a duty to observe equality, and therefore, the Government could not pick and choose, nor exclude the persons by discrimination; and that, what was the question in the above writ petition was not the terms of the contract, but a condition imposed which was not embodied in the grant as it falls outside the contractual terms, and accordingly entertained W.P. No. 9043 of 1997 and that the same was maintainable, as the question involved was not purely a breach of contract, but a challenge as to the justness or correctness of the condition relating to the Constitution of the Governing Council, touching the very Jurisdiction of the administrative action of the Government.
13. With regard to the second issue, raised in W.P. No. 9043 of 1997, namely, whether condition No. 1 relating to the Constitution of the Governing Council is valid in law or oppose the principles of natural Justice, this Court, by order dated 7-12-1998, held that the condition embodied in para No. 4(1) of the proceedings dated 3-4-1997 was not valid in law, as the same was violative of Section 25 read with Section 388B(5) of the Companies Act, as the Constitution of the Governing Council would amount to an interference with the internal management and affairs of the petitioner-club; the right of the Government to impose conditions relating to the use of the land could not be extended to impose a condition for the Constitution of the Governing Council to interfere with the very management and affairs of the petitioner-club; the said condition is extraneous to the object of the Government Grants Act, 1895, viz.. relating to the usage of land and to secure interest in the land; and that the powers conferred on the Government under Section 3 of the Government Grants Act would not enable the Government to impose a condition for the Constitution of the Governing Council: that the want of notice at the time of visit of Cdr. K. S. Randhawa vitiates the proceedings dated 3-4-1997, and that the Government had acted for collateral purpose and in violation of principles of natural Justice and struck down condition No. 1 in the proceedings dated 3-4-1997.
14. With regard to the third issue, viz., this Court held that there could not be an automatic renewal of lease because the renewal of lease was agreed to be at the option of the Government; the decision making belongs to the domain of the Government with regard to the grant of lease as well as determination of rent; this Court could see only the process of decision making, but should not make a decision itself and the judicial review is not concerned with the decision but with the decision making process, as held in Zora Singh v. J.M. Tandon, and Dwarkdas Marfatia and Sons v. Board of Trustees, Court of Bombay, . it would not be appropriate to give a direction to renew the lease as prayed for; the Court would not be guilty of usurping the power which does not belong to it: and that it would be open for the Government to consider the request of the petitioner for renewal, in accordance with law, as the opinion was reserved under the grant, and further observed that the Government would take into consideration the show cause notice dated 8-7-1996, objections of the petitioner-club dated 19-7-1996, proceedings of the Collector dated 14-8-1996 and recommendations of the Commissioner, Land Administration dated 29-8-1996. while passing appropriate orders for renewal of lease.
15. This Court, accordingly, by order dated 7-12-1998 in W.P. No. 9043 of 1997, quashed the condition mentioned in para 4(1) of the proceedings dated 3-4-1997 relating to the Constitution of the Governing Council, but, refused to direct the Government to grant renewal of lease, as observed above. Therefore, it appears that the Government have filed an appeal against the said order dated 7-12-1998 made in W.P. No. 9043 of 1997, and, in the meanwhile, the Government, rejected the request of the petitioner-club for renewal of lease beyond 30-6-1996. by G-O. Ms. No. 278 Revenue (LD II.1) Department dated 4-6-1999. which reads as follows :
" GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU ABSTRACT Land -- Lease -- Chennai District --Mambalam-Guindy Taluk -- Government Farm Village -- T.S. No. 2 -- Block No. 8 Land leased to Cosmopolitan Club Lease period expired on 30-6-96 Request for renewal of lease rejected -- Orders -- Issued.
REVENUE (LDA.1)DEPARTMENT G.O. Ms. No. 278 Dated: 4-6-99 Read:
From the Honorary Secretary, Cosmopolitan Club letter dated 19-1-96 and 18-3-97.
ORDER In G.O.Ms. No. 1494. Revenue dated 27-7-37 an extent of 0.33 acres of land was leased to the Cosmopolitan Club, followed by a grant of lease of 77.37 acres in 1956. Thus, a total extent of 77.70 acres has been leased to the Cosmopolitan Club. The lease was lastly renewed in G.O.Ms. No. 3189, Revenue, Dated 9-12-66 for the period up to 30-6-96. The Government however, reserved the right of further renewal at their option.
2. The Government have examined the request for renewal of lease beyond 30-6-96. On careful examination of the use of the land by the Club reveals that the Club has not taken adequate interest in maintaining the Golf Course properly. The Government had given the land for the promotion of Golf Course. But the Golf Course, though 60 years old, does not have any of the facilities such as good grass and soil underneath of International standard. The other essentials that are required for a Golf Course such as good drainage and Irrigation system for the upkeep of the grass and Fairways are lacking. As against the norms that greens should be large with specific quality grass, Greens are much smaller than acceptable International Standard and the Fairway grass is of poor quality and has to be fully re-laid. The Club House built about 50 years ago is in a totally dilapidated condition with no changing rooms, lack of running water, dirty bathrooms and poor lighting. The condition of the Club House is also not worth-mentioning. The sewage water flowing through the middle of the Course and parts of the Course is used by the people living in the hutments around as a public convenience resulting in appalling hygiene level of the Golf Course. The Golf Course lacks basic facilities and has deteriorated over the years due to total lack of maintenance and commitment on the part of Cosmopolitan Club. Moreover, whatever improvements that have been done in the Club over the years, seem to have been done by the Golfers. Hence, the land has not been properly utilised for the purpose for which it was given on lease.
3. The Government have examined the issue in great detail. Since the period of lease is already over, the Government reject the request for renewal of lease beyond 30-6-96 in view of the reason indicated in the previous paragraphs. The Cosmopolitan Club is, therefore, requested to hand over the possession of the land to the Government, immediately.
(By Order of the Governor) R. SELLAMUTHU SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT Hence, the above writ petition.
16, According to the petitioner-club,
(a) The impugned Government Order, having been passed by exercising the statutory powers under the Government Grants Act, is liable to be quashed, and consequently, the petitioner-club is entitled to seek a Writ of Mandamus, as prayed for.
(b) Refusing to renew the lease, even without giving an opportunity to the petitioner-club or without inspecting the impugned land, subsequent to the order of this Court dated 7-12-1998. violates the principles of natural justice;
(c) The Government have failed to apply their mind on the contribution of the petitioner-club in maintaining the impugned Golf Course for years together and failed to consider the relevant factors, but had taken irrelevant materials into consideration, while passing the impugned Government Order dated 4-6-1999;
(d) The Government, having proposed to grant extension of lease for a further period of thirty years from 1-7-1996, by their proceedings dated 3-4-1997, subject to the Constitution of Governing Council as one of the additional conditions, which stands quashed by order of this Court dated 7-12-1998, ought to have renewed the lease, as already proposed;
(e) The petitioner-club is entitled for the grant of renewal of lease, as a matter of right, on legitimate expectation, as the Government had already exercised their option to grant lease in favour of the petitioner, in their letter dated 3-4-1997, acknowledging the element of public interest in the impugned grant, and what remains to be decided is to prescribe the terms of renewal;
(f) The impugned G.O.Ms. No. 278 Revenue (LDII. 1) Dept. dated 4-6-1999 is tainted with mala fide, arbitrary, unfair, unjustified and unreasonable exercise of powers, and therefore, violates Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
17. The petitioner-club has prayed the relief only against Respondents 1 to 3. However, the fourth respondent Golfers Association, claiming as beneficiaries of the impugned grant, got themselves impleaded by order of this Court dated 12-7-1999 made in W. M. P. No. 16932 of 1999 and also impleaded the fifth respondent Golfers Federation by order dated 29-7-1999 in W.M.P, No. 17912 of 1999.
18.1. The Government contends that the relief prayed in the above writ petition is purely based on contractual obligations between the parties; the petitioner-club has no statutory right to seek renewal of the lease, and therefore, is not entitled to seek the relief as prayed for, invoking Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
18.2. It is further contended that the renewal of lease is well within the domain of the Government, as already held by this Court by order dated 7-12-1998 in W.P. No. 9043 of 1997. and therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to seek the same relief for grant of renewal, which would otherwise attract the principles of res judicata.
18.3. The Government further contends that the petitioner-club is not entitled to seek a Writ of Certiorari to quash the impugned Government Order dated 4-6-1999, as no substantial right is sought to be enforced, and hence, the writ petition is not maintainable.
18.4. It is further contended that the refusal of lease by the impugned Government Order dated 4-6-1999, which is governed under the provisions of the Government Grants Act, cannot be tested by mala fide, arbitrary, unfair, unjustified and unreasonable exercise of power by the authorities, nor in the light of the provisions of the Transfer of Property Act, as held in Hajee S.V.M. Mohamed Jamaludeen Bros, and Co. v. Govt. of Tamil Nadu, .
18.5. It is further contended that the proceedings dated 3-4-1997 was only a proposal of renewal, subject to conditions stated therein, but not a concluded decision to grant renewal in favour of the petitioner-club. This Court, by order dated 7-12-1998, left the matter to the Government to take appropriate decision in the matter, of course, keeping in mind the element of public interest involved in the grant, as the Government have unfettered right to take appropriate decision in the matter to grant or refuse the renewal of lease.
19. The fourth respondent-Golfers Association states that it has 1162 members, called as Associate members of the petitioner-club in respect of Golf Section, but they are not entitled to any privilege of the petitioner-club, even though they substantially contribute to the Golf Section byway of annual subscription at Rs. 2,500/- per member, which provides a revenue of Rs. 25 lakhs a year, approximately. That apart, the entrance fee, which was originally collected at Rs. 25,000/-, has now been increased to Rs. 50,000/- for the past three years, during which period, about 200 members have joined, providing a revenue of Rs. 1 crore to the petitioner club, and the petitioner club has a revenue of Rs. 2.2 crores, by way of entrance fee and Rs. 25 lakhs by way of subscription from the members, apart from the individual funds raised.
20. The fifth respondent federation claims that the federation has been founded by the Golfers with an object of raising the standard of the Impugned Golf course and there are about 390 playing members and 200 institutional members and out of them, 240 or more of the members are from Cosmopolitan Golf Club Annexe itself. According to the fifth respondent, the fourth respondent is an association, formed after passing of the impugned order dated 4-6-1999, which would show that the fourth respondent-association is not genuine in its very formation nor bona fide in its object. The fifth respondent also states that in the matter of grant of lease, much less the grant or refusal of renewal of such lease that are admittedly governed under the provisions of the Government Grants Act, the provisions of the Transfer of Property Act or the principles of equity, justice and good conscience are not applicable, and therefore, neither the petitioner-club nor Respondents 4 and 5 are entitled to challenge the impugned proceedings, alleging mala fide, arbitrary, unfair, unjustified and unreasonable exercise of powers or for violation of the principles of natural justice, nor could claim legitimate expectation, taking note of the element of public interest in the matter.
21. Even though there are allegations and counter allegations between the fourth and fifth respondents, they are not relevant to be mentioned here as those allegations were not pressed by the learned counsel for the respective parties, as they are neither relevant nor germane to the issues raised in the above writ petition. However, it is the common case of the fourth and fifth respondents that the petitioner-club has not made enough efforts to maintain the Golf Course and to improve the facilities in order to bring it to an international standard, and whatever improvements have been done in the Golf Course over the years, have been done only by the Golfers.
22. The petitioner-club. in its rejoinder, has denied the allegations levelled against them by Respondents 1 to 3 as well as Respondents 4 and 5 and further contends that the petitioner-club has taken enough efforts to maintain the club and to improve its facilities in order to bring it to the international standard.
23. Elaborate arguments were addressed by Mr. R. Thiagarajan, learned senior counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Habibullah Badsha, learned senior counsel for the Respondents 1 to 3, Mr. ViJayNarayan, learned counsel for the fourth respondent and Mr. S.K. Gangulee, learned senior counsel for the fifth respondent, placing reliance on the decision of the Apex Court to stress their respective contentions, referred to above.
24. I have bestowed my careful consideration to the submissions of all parties.
25. The issues that arise for my consideration in the above writ petition, are :
(I) Whether the petitioner-club is entitled to maintain the above writ petition?
(II) Whether the petitioner-club is entitled for the relief as prayed for, as a matter of right, on legitimate expectation, relying on the element of public interest in the impugned grant?
(III) Whether the impugned Government Order is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India, for want of fairness, reasonableness, equity and Justness and violates the principles of natural justice; liable to be quashed for mala fide, arbitrary, unfair, unjustified and unreasonable discretionary exercise of power of the Government?
26. Issue No. (I) Whether the petitioner-club is entitled to maintain the above writ petition?
Admittedly, the lease of the Government lands granted to the petitioner-club by G.O.Ms. No. 3185; Revenue Department dated 9-11-1966 had expired on 30-6-1996. The renewal of the lease, at the option of the Government, has now been refused by the impugned G.O.Ms. No. 278, Revenue (LD II.1) dated 4-6-1999. Aggrieved by such refusal of renewal, the petitioner-club has come before this Court seeking a judicial review of the said G.O.Ms. No. 278, Revenue (LD II. 1) Department dated 4-6-1999 and for consequential direction, by issue of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, as prayed for.
26.1. Of course, the petitioner-club was constrained to challenge, in W.P. No. 9043 of 1997, the condition imposed by the Government in the proceedings dated 3-4-1997 to constitute a Governing Council consisting equal representation by the petitioner-club, Government, as well as the fifth respondent-federation, while proposing to renew the lease for another thirty years. This Court, by order dated 7-12-1998, held that the above writ petition, viz., W.P. No. 9043 of 1997, was maintainable and the condition impugned therein was not valid in law, however, refused to grant a direction for renewal, as such decision making entirely belongs to the domain of the Government, and consequently, observed that it is open for the Government to consider the request of the petitioner-club for renewal, in accordance with law, as the Government have reserved the option under the very grant. Accordingly, the Government, taking note of the fact that the period of lease was already over; the land has not been properly utilised for the purpose for which it was given on lease and for the reasons mentioned in paragraph (2) of the impugned Government Order, rejected the request of the petitioner for renewal of lease beyond 30-6-1996. The petitioner-club, therefore, challenges the impugned Government Order dated 4-6-1998 as mala fide, arbitrary, unfair, unjustified, unreasonable and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
26.2. Even though the contractual obligations cannot be enforced under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, there cannot be any dispute as to the proposition that arbitrary exercise of discretion by the public authorities, even in the matter of contracts, is subject to Judicial review, if the same attracts Article 14 of the Constitution of India, as held in Ramanav. I.A. Authority of India, ; Kasturi Lal v. State of J. and K., and Shrilekha Vidyarthi v. State of U. P.. .
26.3. Similarly, where the exercise of discretion is coupled with public duty and requires to satisfy the principle of reasonableness, the person aggrieved by such exercise of discretion is entitled to invoke Article 226 of the Constitution of India to enforce such public duty in compliance of the principles of natural justice, even though the same is not imposed by the statute, as held in a catena of decisions, viz., Shri Anandi Mukta Sadguru S.M.V.S.J.M.S. Trust v. V.R. Rudani, ; Comptroller and Auditor General v. K.S. Jagannathan. ; Dwarakanath v. I.-T. Officer, and Hochtlef Gammon v. State of Orissa. .
26.4. In my considered opinion, when the petitioner-club challenges the refusal of renewal of lease, by exercising the option reserved under the grant, complaining that the same is arbitrary, mala fide, unfair, unjustified and unreasonable, as the same is based on irrelevant consideration or by Ignoring relevant materials, It may not be proper for this Court to shut down the doors of Justice merely on technicalities that this Court had already refused to grant relief for renewal, as such decision making, entirely belongs to the domain of the Government, overlooking the fact that the petitioner-club is aggrieved only by such decision. Therefore, technicalities should not come in the way of scrutinising the grievance complained, invoking Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Issue No. (I) is answered accordingly.
27. Issue No. (II) : Whether the petitioner-club is entitled for the relief as prayed for, as a matter of right, on legitimate expectation, relying on the element of public interest in the impugned grant?
Issue No. (III) : Whether the impugned Government Order is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India, for want of fairness, reasonableness, equity and Justness and violates the principles of natural justice; liable to be quashed for mala fide, arbitrary, unfair, unjustified and unreasonable discretionary exercise of power of the Government?
Issue Nos. II and III are Inter-linked and the consideration of the same boils out of common allegations. Therefore, they are dealt with together.
27.1. Mr. R. Thiagarajan, learned senior counsel for the petitioner, seriously contends that the petitioner-club has not violated any of the conditions of the grant; has spent huge amount for improving the Golf course: has not used the impugned land for any other purpose, and therefore, the petitioner-club is entitled forrenewal of lease for another thirty years. He further contends that the refusal of such renewal on an Imaginary and self-styled reason that the petitioner-club has not provided adequate facility up to the international standard is nothing but irrational and extraneous to the very grant of lease, and therefore, refusal of renewal impugned in the above writ petition is unfair, unreasonable, unjustified, arbitrary and mala fide.
27.2. Mr. R. Thiagarajan, learned senior counsels, further contends that the reasons stated in paragraph 2 of the impugned Government Order is nothing but a reproduction of the reasons that weighed Cdr. K. S. Randhawa, which form the basis for imposing a condition relating to the Constitution of the Governing Council, as per the proceedings dated 3-4-1997, which got quashed by this Court by order dated 7-12-1998 in W.P. No. 9043 of 1997, and therefore, attributing the same reason for refusing to renew the lease is arbitrary, and unreasonable; and hence, eschewing such reason, would render the impugned Government Order as one without reason, and consequently, refusal of renewal without reason is illegal as the Government are not entitled to substitute the reason any more, that were not found in the impugned order, as held in Mohinder Singh Gill v. Chief Election Commissioner, .
27.3. Argued Mr. R. Thiagarajan, learned senior counsel, that the option thus reserved by the Government under the grant is not absolute and unfettered and the same cannot be exercised arbitrarily, presumably at the Instance of the fifth respondent, without assigning any reason also amounts to mala fide, if pierced through the facts and circumstances of the case, and therefore, the Impugned Government Order violates Article 14, and hence, liable to be quashed.
27.4. Mr. R. Thiagarajan, learned senior counsel, argues that non-application of mind on the contributions made by the petitioner-club to improve and develop the Golf course is not only unfair and unjustified, but also mala fide, as the Government, in spite of acknowledging the element of public Interest in the grant, refused to renew the lease by wrongful exercise of option, ignoring the reasonable and legitimate expectation of the petitioners for renewal, and that the Government, in any event, cannot go back from the earlier decision to renew the lease, as proposed in their letter dated 3-4-1997.
27.5. The Apex Court in Punjab Commu-nications Ltd. v. Union of India, after referring some of its important decisions on the doctrine of legitimate expectation, viz., Food Corporation of India v. Kamdenu Cattle Feed Industhes. ; Union of India v. Hindustan Development Corporation, ; Madras City Wine Merchants' Association v. State of Tamil Nadu; and National Buildings Construction Corporation v. S. Raghunathan, observed that the Doctrine of legitimate expectation has been accepted as a part of our legal system and held that the decision maker can normally be compelled to give effect to his representation in regard to the expectation based on previous practice or past conduct, unless some overriding public interest comes in the way, since the choice of policy is for the decision maker and not for the Court and therefore, any decision defeating the substantive legitimate expectation should stand to the test of reasonableness in Wednesbury's sense and fulfil the overriding public interest required therein. But the legitimate expectation, as held in Nayjyoti Co-operative Group Housing Society v. Union of India. , is not the same as anticipation; It is different from a mere wish or desire or hope; nor is it a claim or a demand, based on right. The mere disappointment would not, therefore, give rise to legal consequences. That is why, for a plea of legitimate expectation, there should be a subsisting right, by itself. Only a denial of such subsisting right would attract the plea of legitimate expectation. Therefore, there cannot be any legitimate expectation for renewal beyond the permitted time, and hence, no right to hearing is warranted from procedural aspect of the legitimate expectation; nor requires an automatic renewal of such right from substantive aspect of legitimate expectation, particularly when such right of renewal is reserved at the option of the Government, as per the terms of the grant. It therefore follows that a decision of the Government arrived at by exercising their option, should balance the public interest and legitimate expectation satisfying the principle of reasonableness in Wednesbury's sense.
27.6. To test whether the Impugned Government Order refusing to renew the lease balances the legitimate expectation of the petitioner-club, fulfilling the admitted public interest, as acknowledged by the respondent, it is relevant to decide what is the element of public Interest involved in the impugned grant.
27.7. What is the element of public interest that is to be weighed in the Impugned grant?
Golf, a game of Scottish origin, is one of the popular recreation and competitive sports in the world. For instance, in counthes like Japan, Golf is regarded as a national pass-tune. When thus Golf is gaining as a prestigious sport all over the world, the scope for attracting the impugned Golf Course at Chennai by the foreign residents due to the globalisation of trade, cannot be ignored. Consequently, the need to improve the Golf course to the acceptable international standard has become inevitable and the necessity to offer adequate provisions to protect the interest of the Golfers, as uniformly canvassed by Mr. Vijay Narayan, learned counsel for the fourth respondent and Mr. S. K. Gangulee, learned senior counsel for the fifth respondent cannot be dispensed with. There lies the element of public interest in the impugned grant of lease; but not in renewing the lease in favour of the petitioner, particularly when it is the common case of the respondents that the petitioner-club has not properly utilised the leased land for the purpose for which it was granted, nor Improved the Infrastructural facilities to the acceptable international standard.
27.8. The next question that arises for consideration is whether the impugned decision refusing the renewal, taking note of the element of public interest in the impugned grant, satisfies the principles of reasonableness in Wednesbury's sense, to balance the legitimate expectation of the petitioner-club. Arguments of Mr. R. Thiagarajan, leasned senior counsel for the petitioner, in this regard, are very impressive. But, still I am unable to countenance with the same. Mr. R. Thiagarajan, learned senior counsel, claiming the impugned decision is unreasonable, contends that the petitioner-club requires an opportunity at a pre-decisional stage; otherwise, it would offend the rule of Audi alteram partem. In my opinion, an opportunity is required at the pre-decisional stage, only in the matter of subsisting right, for Instance, where the Government propose to cancel the said lease or license, but not in a case of non-renewal of lease, which had already expired. Giving an opportunity at a pre-decisional stage, much less investigating the reasons offered pursuant to the opportunity, would arise only in the case of cancellation of lease and the consequent taking over of possession, but not in a case where the lease itself comes to an end by efflux of time, as per the terms of the grant. Therefore, the principles laid down in Swadeshi Cotton Mills v. Union of India, relied upon by Mr. R. Thiagarajan, learned senior counsel, is not applicable to the facts of the instant case. Since the petitioner-club has no foundation of right for renewal, it cannot contend that the non-renewal is unreasonable, unfair, unjust or arbitrary, as rightly pointed out by Mr. Habibullah Badsha, learned senior counsel for the Respondents 1 to 3.
27.9. Even though the petitioner-club attributes mala ftde in the action of the Government, I am not able to trace out any details of such mala fide except a bald allegation to that effect. In the absence of any specific and convincing plea as to the mala fide, it may not be proper for this Court to interfere with such discretionary decision of the Government, amplifying the vague and indefinite plea of mala fide without any material for the same, as held in Kedar Nath Bahl v. State of Punjab, .
27.10. I find every force and substance in the arguments of Mr. Habibullah Badsha, learned senior counsel for Respondents 1 to 3 that the Government have rightly exercised their option in refusing the renewal, as the public interest neither suffers nor comes in the way of such decision. Once it is left to the wisdom of the Government to decide the future action, the petitioner-club is not entitled to expect the same to be exercised as it desires, infringing such an option of the Government: nor this Court can interfere with such discretion on any account, inasmuch as such absolute discretion of the Government pre-supposes an element of decision of the Government themselves, without being subject to the influence of any other factor. That apart, when the period of grant itself came to an end by efflux of time, as per the terms of the grant, in my considered opinion, the reasons that weighed the Government, as mentioned in paragraph (2) of the impugned Government Order dated 4- 6-1999, will not in any way entitle the petitioner-club to seek quashing of the impugned Government Order, as no reason is required to be furnished for refusing the renewal nor any action is to be taken by the Government to terminate the lease before resuming the Government land. Therefore, the contention, placing reliance on Mohinder Singh Gill v. Chief Election Commissioner, that the respondent cannot substitute the reason to Justify the impugned Government Order does not deserve any consideration.
27.11. On the contrary. I find force and substance in the arguments of Mr. Habibullah Badsha, learned senior counsel, that no fault, much less mala fide, arbitrary, unfair, unjustified and unreasonable exercise of power could be attributed against the Government in refusing the renewal by the Impugned Government Order, as the same is governed under the terms of the grant and the provisions of the Government Grants Act. As a result, the provisions of the Transfer of Property Act and the principles of equity, Justice and good conscience are not applicable to such decisions of the Government. In this regard, I am obliged to refer Sections 2 and 3 of the Government Grants Act, which read as follows :
"Section 2 Transfer of Property Act, 1882, not to apply to Government grants.-- Nothing in the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. contained shall apply or deemed ever to have applied to any grant or other transfer of land or of any interest therein heretofore made or hereafter to be made by or on behalf of the Government to, or in favour of, any person whomsoever; but every such grant and transfer shall be construed and take effect as if the said Act had not been passed."
"Section 3: Government grants to take effect according to their tenor.-- All provisions, restrictions, conditions and limitations over contained in any such grant or transfer as aforesaid shall be valid and take effect according to their tenor, any rule of law, statute or enactment of the Legislature to the contrary notwithstanding."
27.12. Section 2 of the Government Grants Act insulates all grants and all transfers of land or any interest therein made by the Government from the checks of the provisions of Transfer of Property Act and Section 3 of the Government Grants Act protects the terms of such grant from the provisions of any other law.
27.13. The Apex Court, in Hajee S.V.M. Mohamed Jamaludeen Bros, and Co. v. Govt. of Tamil Nadu, , while testing the validity of a clause of an agreement governed under the provisions of the Government Grants Act, viz., "the lease shall also be liable to be terminated at any time by the lessor or any officer of the Department acting for and on behalf without assigning any reasons therefor", interpreted Sections 2 and 3 of the Government Grants Act, and held as follows :
" 10. The combined effect of the above two sections of the Grants Act is that terms of any grant or terms of any transfer of land made by a Government would stand insulated from the tentacles of any statutory law. Section 3 places the terms of such grant beyond the reach of any restrictive provision contained in any enacted law or even the equitable principles of justice, equity and good conscience adumbrated by common law if such principles are inconsistent with such terms. The two provisions are so framed as to confer unfettered discretion on the Government to enforce any condition or limitation or restriction in all types of grants made by the Government to any person. In other words, the rights, privileges and obligations of any grantee of the Government would be completely regulated by the terms of the grant, even if such terms are inconsistent with the provisions of any other law."
27.14. The Apex Court thus, in Hajee S.V.M. Mohamed Jamaludeen Bros, and Co. v. Govt. ofTamil Nadu, , held that the said clause empowers the Government adequately to terminate the agreement unilaterally or to revoke the grant without assigning any reason whatsoever and the said clause is valid and could be enforced by the Government at any time, and hence, the action of the Government in rescinding the contract was valid. It is therefore clear that, in a matter of grant, the terms of such grant cannot be challenged as violative of any enacted law or even the equitable principle of equity, justice and good conscience adumbrated by common law.
27.15. As it is well-settled in law that the renewal is, in essence, a grant of lease for fresh period, and therefore, after the expiry of lease on 30-6-1996, the petitioner-club has no right in law to seek renewal automatically, unless and until the Government, by exercising their option, renew the lease in favour of the petitioner-club.
27.16. Assuming the petitioner club's right under the lease ceased and required to be determined in terms of compensation, the resumption of property granted need not necessarily be delayed till determining the amount of compensation, as a condition precedent, to resume the property as held in Union of India v. Harish Chand Anand, that it would be suffice to issue one month's notice for such resumption, on expiry, and thereafter, the Government is entitled to resume the land; otherwise, it would defeat the public interest inasmuch as the determination of compensation to be paid by the entitling grantee is nothing but a ministerial act, and payment thereof is a resultant consequence, 27.17. As rightly pointed out by Mr. S.K. Gangulee, learned senior counsel for the fifth respondent, the petitioner is not able to point out its right as on date, which it seeks to retain. Even as per the terms of the grant, the petitioner-club knew that the life time of the lease would come to an end on 30-6-1996 and the option is with the Government to renew the lease or to reject the lease for another term. Once the earlier grant, governed under the provisions of the Government Grants Act, expired by its own force, the right of the petitioner-club to seek renewal is only subject to the option reserved by the Government under the very grant. Therefore, principles of equity, justice, good conscience and fair play have no role to play for challenging such refusal of renewal. If the refusal of renewal is tested in the teeth of arbitrariness, unfairness, unreasonableness or violation of principles of natural justice. It would amount to rewriting the grant itself, by incorporating these conditions as terms of the grant, which is not permissible under the provisions of the Government Grants Act, as the same would frustrate and defeat the object of the Government Grants Act. Once the Government, in the public interest, exercise their option and refuse the renewal of lease governed under the provisions of the Government Grants Act, the properties go back to the Government at the end of the lease period.
27.18. The decision thus taken by the Government, taking note of the element of public interest in the matter of impugned grant of lease, referred to above, in the Wednesbury's sense, cannot be said to be offending the legitimate expectation of the petitioner-club and such decision of the Government cannot be reviewed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, as held in a chain of decisions in Food Corporation of India v. Kamdhenu Cattle Feed Industhes. ; Tata Cellular v. Union of India, : Sterlirig Computers Ltd. v. M and N Publications Ltd.. ; Punjab Communications Ltd. v. Union of India, and Chandravadanam E. v. State of Tamil Nadu, and Farida Shaukath v. Unit Trust of India, . Therefore, I am of the considered opinion that the impugned order cannot be interfered with for want of reasonableness, nor can be held as offending the public interest, and therefore, the petitioner-club is not entitled to seek renewal as a matter of right, on legitimate expectation.
27.19. I am unable to agree with the arguments of Mr. R. Thiagarajan, learned senior counsel, placing reliance on the order dated 7-12-1998 made in W.P. No. 9043 of 1997 as the sheet-anchor, that the proceedings dated 3-4-1997 proposing to renew the tease, still holds good, eschewing the condition relating to the Constitution of the Governing Council, as the petitioner-club is enjoying the lease since 1933 and has spent huge amount to improve the Golf Course, and therefore, the petitioner-club is entitled for renewal. In my considered opinion, the proceedings dated 3-4-1997, even in the light of the order of this Court dated 7-12-1998 made in W.P. No. 9043 of 1997, cannot be construed as a concluded decision to grant renewal, for the reason that this Court left the matter of renewal to be decided by the Government, as such decision making entirely belongs to the domain of the Government, as pointed out by Mr. Habibullah Badsha, learned senior counsel for the respondent 1 to 3. Quashing of the condition relating to the constitution of Governing Council incorporated in the order dated 3-4-1997, in any way, will not confer any right on the petitioner-club to seek renewal of lease automatically, on legitimate expectation. A close reading of the order dated 7-12-1998 would make it clear that this Court interfered with the condition relating to the constitution of Governing Council, imposed in the proceedings dated 3-7-1997, holding that the said condition infringes the management and affairs of the petitioner-club, offending Section 25 read with Section 388B(5) of the Companies Act, but not as it infringes its right of renewal, which is purely left to the option of the Government , governed by the terms of the grant and the provisions of the Government Grants Act, and even the finding that the said condition is extraneous to the object of the Government Grants Act and the contention of the petitioner-club that it has spent huge amount to Improve the Golf Course, will not hold good, as the same does not fit in with the ratio laid down in Hajee S.V.M. Mohamed Jamaludeen Bros. & Co. v. Govt. of Tamil Nadu. and Union of India v, Harish Chand Anand, . Therefore. I do not think that the petitioner-club can derive any strength from the order dated 7-12-1998 to stake its claim for renewal, on legitimate expectations.
27.20. The Apex Court, in Anamallai Club v. Govt. of Tamil Nadu, , held that after the determination of the grant, though the grantee has no right to remain in possession, the State cannot take unilateral possession without taking recourse to the procedure provided under the Tamil Nadu Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, by giving time to vacate the premises within 10 days or 15 days, as the case requires , and that, in any event, the grantee, at the lapse of the lease period, is not entitled to notice before the order of termination.
27.21. As held in Hajee S.V.M. Mohammed Jamaludeen Bros. & Co. v. Government of Tamil Nadu and Union of India v. Harish Chand Anand, . the Government is required to take back the land once the lease period expires, of course, subject to the ratio laid down in Anamallai Club v. Government of Tamil Nadu, referred to above.
27.22. Testing the impugned decision. made in G.O.Ms. No. 289 Revenue (LD II.1) Department dated 4-6-1999, of the Government, refusing the renewal of lease, within the contours of the principles laid down in a catena of decisions referred to above, both the issues (II) and (III) are answered in negative.
28. However, taking note of the public interest that lies in favour of the Golfers in the impugned grant of lease, this Court reposes confidence that the Government would take appropriate further decision with due and proper care to protect the interest of the Golfers in pursuance of the impugned Government Order as it may not be proper for this Court either to direct or to suggest anything in this regard, as it would otherwise be an invasion in the decision making powers of the Government.
29. In the result, the writ petition is dismissed with the above observations. Consequently, the connected W.M.Ps. are dismissed. No costs.