Ramesh Dutt Pathak vs The State Of Jharkhand
2023 Latest Caselaw 3108 Jhar

                                           1


       IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                     W. P. (C) No. 2524 of 2023
      Ramesh Dutt Pathak                        .... .. ... Petitioner(s)
                     Versus
      1.The State of Jharkhand, Department of Tourism, Dhurwa, Ranchi.
      2. Secretary, Department of Tourism, Arts, Culture, Sports and Youth
        Affairs, Dhurwa, Ranchi.
      3. The Director, Jharkhand Tourism Development Corporation Limited,
         Main Road, Ranchi.
      4. Managing Director, Jharkhand Tourism Development Corporation Limited,
         Main Road, Ranchi.
                                                 .. ... ...Respondent(s)
                     ...........

CORAM :HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY .........

      For the Petitioner(s) :      Mr. Bhaiya Biswajeet, Advocate
                                   Mr. Shankar Singh, Advocate
      For the State              : Ms. Archna Kumari, AC to AAG-V
      For the Resp.-JTDC :         Mr. Sumeet Gadodia, Advocate
                                   M/s Ankit Kumar & Shashank Kumar, Advocates

                     ......
CAV on 08.08.2023.                                     Pronounced on 23.08.2023.

1. The instant Writ Petition (Civil) has been filed for issuance of Writ in the nature of Certiorari for quashing of the Letter No.103/ 2023 dated 27.01.2023 of Managing Director, Jharkhand Tourism Development Corporation Limited, Main Road, Ranchi (Respondent No.4).

2. The petitioner is a licensee of the Sanskar Bhawan cum Restaurant, Simdega (called Project Site) which was allotted vide agreement dated 18.02.2016 by the Jharkhand Tourism Development Corporation Limited (in short be referred as JTDC) for renovation, operation and maintenance for Project Development and Management Agreement (PDMA or Agreement). As per clause 3.2 of the Agreement, it was for a period of 10 years and the parties could mutually agree to extend the term of the Agreement for a further period of 10 years. The Agreement further provided that in the event of default, the aggrieved party was competent to terminate the deed with 30 days of receipt of notice.

3. The agreement has been terminated by the impugned letter dated 27.01.23 for non-payment of annual licence fee of Rs 6,65,329.00 for the period 17.01.2021 to 16.01.2023 and consequently performance security of Rs 5,01,001.00 forfeited.

4. It is submitted that during COVID-19, the business condition of Hotels and Restaurant had collapsed and, therefore, he failed to deposit the Annual Fee of Rs.6,65,329/- for the period from 17.01.2021 to 16.01.2023.

[W. P. (C) No. 2524 of 2023]

3. Respondent No.4 served preliminary termination notice vide Letter No.979/2022 and in compliance to it, the petitioner deposited the said amount within 30 days i.e. on 04.02.2023. Despite deposit of annual fee, the agreement has been terminated by the said letter which is under-challenge in the instant Writ Petition.

4. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that there has not been any breach of contract on the part of the petitioner and despite that, the said agreement has been terminated.

5. Learned counsel for the Respondent(s)- JTDC has opposed the prayer and submitted that the instant Writ Petition is not maintainable as there is arbitral clause in the said agreement being Clause 11(2)(a), but without availing the same, the instant Writ Petition has been filed. Further the matter involves breach of contract, for which the petitioner has alternative and efficacious remedy under the general law before the Civil Court of competent jurisdiction.

6. Reliance is placed on the judgment reported in 2022 SCC Online 247 at Para-8, wherein it has been held that no Writ of Mandamus could have been issued for specific performance of contract under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The ratio decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the judgment reported in 2022 SCC Online 249 is also to the same effect.

7. On merit, it is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that this is not the first instance where there had been delay in depositing the annual fee by the petitioner, the answering respondent(s) on earlier occasion had earlier served notice (Annexure-B to the counter-affidavit) for payment of the annual fee, but the amount had not been deposited despite the said notice.

Having heard the submissions advanced on behalf of both the sides, this Court is of the view that the petitioner is bound by Clause 11(2)(a) of the agreement which provides that any dispute which is not resolved amicably shall finally be resolve by arbitration. In view of available alternative remedy, this writ petition is not maintainable.

Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed.

(Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J.) Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi Dated 23.08.2023.

NAFR/Sandeep/

Uploaded.