M/S. Ratna Siri Food Courts And ... vs Andhra Pradesh Tourism ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 4554 AP

                                      1




               HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
      MAIN CASE No: W.P. No.26053 OF 2021

                            PROCEEDING SHEET

Sl.     DATE                          ORDER                               OFFICE
No.                                                                        NOTE
1     09.11.2021 AVSS, J
                               W.P. No.26053 of 2021              Transferred
                      Rule nisi.     Call for records.     Notice to the IO
                                                                  folder
                returnable in four weeks.                         before
                                                                  corrections,
                      Post on 07.12.2021 for filing counter.      if any.
                                I.A. No.1 of 2021
                      Termination notice bearing No.APTDC/
                19029/03/2020/AMC dated 05.11.2021, issued
                by the Andhra Pradesh Tourism Development
                Corporation Limited, the respondent herein, is

under challenge in the present Writ Petition. By way of the impugned notice, the respondent- Corporation terminated the service agreement dated 24.05.2018 entered into between the petitioner and the respondent herein. On the ground that the petitioner herein committed default in payment of lease amount, preceded by a notice dated 27.07.2020 and submission of explanation by the petitioner on 03.08.2020, the respondent herein issued the impugned order of termination.

According to the learned Senior Counsel, Sri Vedula Venkata Ramana, representing the learned counsel for the petitioner on record, that the impugned action on the part of the respondent-Corporation is highly illegal, arbitrary, unreasonable and violative of Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India. It is also the submission of the learned Senior Counsel that contrary to the material available and the ground realities, the order of termination came to be

Sl. DATE ORDER OFFICE No. NOTE passed by the respondent. It is also the submission of the learned Senior Counsel that since the petitioner herein is disputing the amounts also, the authorities ought to have referred the dispute to the arbitration under Clause-13 of the agreement. It is also the submission of the learned Senior Counsel that the impugned action of the taking possession and control of the project assets without recourse to law is contrary to the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in State of U.P. and others Maharaja Dharmander Prasad Singh [AIR 1989 SC 997]. Paragraph No.15 of the said judgment reads as under:

"15. Sri Sorabjee submitted that great hardship and injustice would be occasioned to the respondents if the State Government, on the self-assumed and self-assessed validity of its own action of cancellation of the lease, attempts at and succeeds in, a resumption of possession extra-judicially by physical force. Sri Sorabjee referred to the notice dated 19.11.1985 in which the Government, according to Sri Sorabjee, had left no-one in doubt as to its intentions of resorting to an extra-judicial resumption of possession. Sri Sorabjee referred to paras 3.10 and 4 of the order dated 19.11.1985.

A lessor, with the best of title, has no right to resume possession extra-judicially by use of force, from a lessee, even after the expiry or earlier termination of the lease by forfeiture or otherwise. The use of the expression 're- entry' in the lease-deed does not authorise

Sl. DATE ORDER OFFICE No. NOTE extrajudicial methods to resume possession. Under law, the possession of a lessee, even after the expiry or its earlier termination is juridical possession and forcible dispossession is prohibited; a lessee cannot be dispossessed otherwise than in due course of law. In the present case, the fact that the lessor is the State does not place it in any higher or better position. On the contrary, it is under an additional inhibition stemming from the requirement that all actions of Government and Governmental authorities should have a 'legal pedigree'. In Bishandas v. State of Punjab, [1962] 2 SCR 69 this Court said:

"We must, therefore, repel the argument based on the contention that the petitioners were trespassers and could be removed by an executive order. The argument is not only specious but highly dangerous by reason of its implications and impact on law and order."

"Before we part with this case, we feel it our duty to say that the executive action taken in this case by the State and its officers is destructive of the basic principle of the rule of law."

Therefore, there is no question in the present case of the Government thinking of appropriating to itself an extra-judicial right of re-entry. Possession can be resumed by Government only in a manner known to or recognised by law. It cannot resume possession otherwise than in accordance

Sl. DATE ORDER OFFICE No. NOTE with law. Government is, accordingly, prohibited from taking possession otherwise than in due course of law."

On the contrary, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent, Sri Bachina Hanumantha Rao, submits that the District Collector took possession of the subject project and assets through the Tahsildar and the Tahsildar, in turn, has delivered the same to the respondent herein.

In the considered opinion of this Court, the issues raised by the learned Senior Counsel, during the course of hearing, are required to be gone into after filing counter by the respondent.

For the aforesaid reasons, the respondent is directed to maintain status quo in all respects as on today with regard to the subject lease pending further orders.

                                                          ________
                                                           AVSS,J
             siva





Sl.   DATE   ORDER   OFFICE
No.                   NOTE





Sl.   DATE   ORDER   OFFICE
No.                   NOTE