Jharkhand High Court
M/S Riverside Tourism Adventures Pvt. ... vs The State Of Jharkhand Through The Chief ... on 30 November, 2023
Author: Sanjaya Kumar Mishra
Bench: Sanjaya Kumar Mishra, Ananda Sen
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P. (C) No. 5268 of 2023
M/s Riverside Tourism Adventures Pvt. Ltd. through its one of the
Director and Authorised Signatory Tapeshwar Prasad
... ... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand through the Chief Secretary, Government
of Jharkhand, Ranchi
2. The Secretary, Department of Tourism, Government of Jharkhand,
Ranchi
3. The Managing Director, Jharkhand Tourism Development
Corporation Limited, Ranchi
4. The General Manager, Jharkhand Tourism Development
Corporation Limited, Ranchi.
5. The Deputy Commissioner, Koderma
6. The District Sports & Tourism Officer-cum-Nodel Officer, Koderma
... ... ... Respondents
---------
CORAM: SRI SANJAYA KUMAR MISHRA, C.J.
SRI ANANDA SEN, J.
---------
For the Petitioner: Mr. Ajit Kumar, Sr. Advocate
Mr. Dhirendra Kumar Deo, Advocate
Mr. Vikalp Gupta, Advocate
For the State: Mr. Yogesh Modi, A.C. to AAG-IA
For Resp. Nos. 3 & 4: Mr. Sumeet Gadodia, Advocate
Mrs. Shilpi Sandil Gadodia, Advocate
Mr. Shashank Kumar, Advocate
---------
04/Dated: 30.11.2023
Upon hearing the learned counsel for the parties, this Court
passed the following, (Per, Sanjaya Kumar Mishra, C.J.)
ORDER
The petitioner in this writ application, a Company incorporated
under the Companies Act, 1956, has filed this writ application for the
following reliefs:-
"For issuance of appropriate writ or writs, order or orders,
direction or directions or a writ in the nature of Certiorari for Quashing
the Office Order vide letter no. 827 of 2022, dated 29.09.2022
(Annexure-08) and for the letter no. 948 of 2022, dated 23.11.2022
(Annexure-11) issued under the seal and signature of the
Respondent No. 03, whereby and whereunder the respondent has
terminated the Project Development and Management Agreement
dated 01.09.2021 and also directed forfeiting the payable amount
including damage from the security deposit and also blacklisting the
company of petitioner for further business with J.T.D.C.L. and
forfeiting the assets and taking over resort.
AND/OR
The petitioner further prays before this Hon'ble Court to
reinstate the agreement executed amongst the party with effect from
01.09.2021 with all consequential benefits.
AND/OR
During the pendency of the instant Writ Petition be pleased to
stay further operation of the order dated 29.09.2022 regarding
termination of PDMA and further be please to not to give effect to the
order dated 23.11.2022 regarding taking over the resort, by
maintaining status quo and further be please to not invite fresh
tender in the said matter.
AND/OR
For issuance of any other appropriate writs(s) be issued, order
(s) be passed, direction (s) be made as this Hon'ble Court may deem
fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case for doing
equitable justice to the petitioner."
The facts of this case, at this stage are not disputed. We may
record here that on 21.11.2023, we directed Mr. Yogesh Modi,
learned A.C. to learned A.A.G.-IA for the State, to take instructions on
the facts of the case and also on 21.11.2023, we had directed
Mr. Sumeet Gadodia, learned counsel for respondent nos. 3 and 4 to
take instructions and apprise the Court about the facts of the case.
Today, Ms. Shilipi Sandil Gadodia, learned counsel, holding brief of
Mr. Sumeet Gadodia, would submit that the facts of the case
regarding issuance of a notice to Mr. Tapeshwar Prasad, describing
him to be the proprietor of the Company, has been given three days'
time to show cause is not disputed. It is also not disputed that nobody
appeared before the authorities and thereafter, the order, i.e.,
Annexure-8 has been passed by the Managing Director, Jharkhand
Tourism Development Corporation Ltd. and the same was again
addressed to Mr. Tapeshwar Prasad describing him to be a proprietor.
However, document dated 01.09.2021 (Annexure-4) reveals that an
agreement was entered into between the Jharkhand Tourism
Development Corporation Ltd. and the Riverside Tourism Adventures
Private Ltd., who undertook the development work and was granted
25 years of lease to run the resort in question.
Learned counsel for respondent nos. 3 and 4 would submit that
because of some police raid, this action has been taken by the
respondents authorities. However, it is not disputed at this stage that
no notice was given to the Company or any person authorized to
represent the Company. Thus, there is a violation of the principles of
natural justice, as it is well-settled that the Company incorporated
under the Indian Companies Act, 1956 or the Companies Act, 2013, is
a juridical person, having a separate identity. A person who may be
the Director or the Company describing him to be the proprietor to
serve the notice that, it will be considered as improper service of
notice and will have no legal consequences. Moreover, it is seen that
the blacklisting has been done in perpetuity, which is in the teeth of
the judgment, passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
M/s Kulja Industries Limited Vs. Chief General Manager, Western
Telecom Project Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited and others,
(2014) 14 SCC 731.
In that view of the matter, we have no hesitation at this stage to
allow the writ application to the extent indicated below:
In the result, the writ application is allowed. We, hereby, issue a
writ of certiorari for quashing Annexure-8, i.e., the communication
impugned in this writ application. The petitioner, as far as other
prayers are concerned, may file a representation for continuation of
the agreement in his favour for the remaining part of the lease period
within a period of 21 days by making duly articulated representation.
Upon such event, respondent no. 3 shall consider the objections/
representations made by the petitioner and after affording reasonable
opportunity of hearing to the petitioner through its properly constituted
attorney/agent/representative dispose of the same by a reasoned and
speaking order within a period of 30 days thereon.
There shall be no orders as to costs.
Pending application, if any, stands disposed of.
Grant urgent certified copy of this order as per the Rules.
(Sanjaya Kumar Mishra, C.J.)
(Ananda Sen, J.)
APK/VK
