Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
M/S. Balaji Caterers vs Airports Authority Of India & Ors on 17 February, 2012
Author: Jayanta Kumar Biswas
Bench: Jayanta Kumar Biswas
1
In The High Court At Calcutta
Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction
Appellate Side
Present:
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jayanta Kumar Biswas.
W.P.No.2400 (W) of 2012
M/s. Balaji Caterers
v.
Airports Authority of India & Ors.
Mr. Debabrata Saha Roy
Mr. Pingal Bhattacharyya
... for the petitioner.
Mr. Anupkanti Poddar
Ms. Aparajita Shyam
Ms. Somtapa Pal
... for the first-fourth respondents.
Heard on: February 17, 2012.
Judgment on: February 17,2012.
The Court: The petitioner in this WP under art.226 dated February 3,2012 is questioning two notices dated August 5,2011 (at p.49) and November 15,2011(at p.56) issued by the Airports Authority of India( in short AAI).
The petitioner is the proprietary name of a business. It is not a person. It is just a name of a business. It has claimed that it is carrying on catering and order supply business.
One Md. Akil Shaikh claiming to be the constituted attorney of the name has signed the WP, presented the WP and affirmed the supporting affidavit. It is inconceivable how the name of a business could appoint Akil as its constituted attorney. The WP is vitiated by incurable defects and it is liable to be dismissed summarily for these reasons.
Even otherwise, I do not find any merit in the WP.
AAI invited expression of interest to obtain licence "for operation of Snack Bar Counter at Haj Terminal (proposed extension of Domestic Terminal), International Terminal Building at NSCBI Airport, Kolkata."
2Balaji expressed its interest. AAI decided to grant it licence on the terms and conditions mentioned in a letter dated April 28, 2011. Balaji submitted a licence agreement accompanied by two cheques on account of advance licence fee and security deposit.
By a letter dated August 5, 2011 AAI informed Balaji that both the cheques had "bounced due to insufficient funds." Balaji was asked to deposit the amounts by demand draft within the period mentioned in the letter. It was mentioned that non-compliance with the requirement would force AAI to forfeit Balaji's earnest money deposit and also to initiate proceedings for " Debar action."
By a letter dated August 17, 2011 Balaji asserted that it had directed stop payment of the cheques, since it did not get certain response it wanted from AAI. By another letter dated October 18, 2011 Balaji requested AAI to reduce the licence fee.
Under the circumstances, AAI issued the letter dated November 15, 2011 saying that in terms of cl.3(i) of the award dated April 28, 2011 the licence would stand terminated on November 21,2011.
Mr. Saha Roy appearing for the petitioner has submitted that when for the whole thing Balaji was not at fault, AAI could not terminate the contract which was never executed. He has said that Balaji is still willing to execute the work under the award letter, if AAI is not willing to refund the money that it had deposited.
Mr. Poddar appearing for AAI has submitted that AAI did not execute the agreement, because its two accompanying cheques bounched, and that for total failure on Balaji's part to take steps under the award letter AAI was compelled to terminate the award, forfeit the earnest money deposit and initiate proceedings for debar action.
It is evident that Balaji did not deposit the advance licence fee and give the security required by the award letter, and that the two cheques it submitted with the agreement expecting AAI to execute it were not honoured by the bank citing insufficiency of funds. In consequence of the notice dated November 15,2011 the licence stood terminated on November 21,2011 and this WP was brought only on February 3,2012.
On these facts, I am unable to accept the argument that AAI has acted unfairly, unreasonably or arbitrarily. I do not see any reason why the Writ Court should interfere in the matter.
For these reasons, the WP is dismissed. No costs. Certified xerox.
3sh. (Jayanta Kumar Biswas, J)