Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Hunny Middha vs State Of Rajasthan on 4 April, 2025

[2025:RJ-JD:17465]



      HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
                       JODHPUR
                S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6497/2025

Hunny Middha S/o Shri Surendra Mohan Middha, Aged About 38
Years, R/o 3-E Chotti, 100 Ft. Road, In Front Of Jangir
Dharamshala, Tehsil And District Sri Ganganagar Raj.
                                                                       ----Petitioner
                                      Versus
1.       State Of Rajasthan, through the Principal Secretary,
         Urban        Development             and       Housing        Department,
         Secretariat, Government Of Rajasthan. Jaipur 302015
2.       The     Secretary,          Urban        Improvement           Trust,    Sri
         Ganganagar. Raj.
                                                                    ----Respondents


For Petitioner(s)             :    Mr.Sanjeet Purohit, Adv.
                                   Mr.Mudit Nagpal, Adv.
For Respondent No.1           :    Mr.Rajesh Panwar, Sr. Adv.-cum AAG
                                   assisted by Mr.Monal Chugh, Adv.
For Respondent No.2           :    Mr.Dron Kaushak, Adv.


            HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MUNNURI LAXMAN

Judgment

Judgment Reserved on : 03/04/2025

Judgment Pronounced on : 04/04/2025

1) The present writ petition has been filed with the following

prayers:

"(i) The office order dated 11.03.2025 (Annex-9) issued by the respondent UIT may kindly be declared illegal and same may kindly be quashed and set aside.

(ii) The mauka fard and transfer letter dated 12.03.2025 (Annex-10) issued by the respondent UIT may kindly be declared illegal and same may kindly be quashed and set aside.

[2025:RJ-JD:17465]

(iii) The agenda no.10 of minutes of meeting of respondent UIT dated 04.03.2025 (Annex-11) may kindly be declared illegal and same may kindly be quashed and set aside.

(iv) The possession of the site in question may kindly be handed back to the petitioner till the expiry of the contract period i.e. 14.02.2026 with immediate effect and permit the petitioners to operate marriage palace upon the site in question.

(v) Cost of the writ petition may kindly be awarded to the petitioner.

2) The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner is a

leaseholder of the site reserved for the Sadbhavana Nagar Yojna

Auditorium, located at Suratgarh-Padampur Bypass. Originally,

this property was leased to the petitioner for five years, effective

from 15.02.2015 to 14.02.2020, with the condition in the original

contract that the lease could be extended further by mutual

consent of the parties. The petitioner, by investing a substantial

amount, developed the site. By order dated 10.02.2020, the lease

period was extended from 15.02.2020 to 14.02.2025, and the

contractor was directed to deposit an annual amount of Rs.

6,16,700/- to the respondents.

3) During the pandemic period, the business activities on the

leased area could not be carried out for one year from March

2020. As per the policy decision of the State Government, the

Trust, by agenda No. 23 in the meeting held on 25.06.2020,

considered the pandemic situation and decided to extend period of

lease and consequential the 2nd respondent has communicated

order dt.17.03.2021, informing the extension of lease period upto

14-6-2026 by treating the commencement of lease period from

01.04.2021 to 14.02.2026. The auditorium was booked for various

[2025:RJ-JD:17465] (3 of 7) [CW-6497/2025]

events and function well in advance and abrupt determination of

contract without any such power amounts to arbitrary and

unreasonable exercise of power.

4) The respondent authorities, in their Trust meeting on

04.03.2025, decided to cancel the lease without issuing any

notice. on the grounds that there are alterations in the contract

agreement regarding the lease period. Consequently, they passed

the present impugned order canceling the contract and directing

the petitioner to hand over possession of the site.

5) The case set up by 2nd respondent is that writ petition is

not maintainable in respect of disputes relating to contractual

matter and appropriate forum is civil court. It is also pleaded that

the contract period was not extended but only rent of year for the

year 2020 to 2021 is adjusted for the year 2021-2022 due to

pandemic situation. The 2nd respondent trust had noticed such

irregularities in the contract document and rights decided to

cancel the contract and cancellation of contract is in the interest of

public. It is also pleaded that the 2 nd respondent trust has power

to cancel contract without notice by invoking the condition no.8 of

the contract.

6) The counsel for petitioner and Mr. Rajesh Panwar, learned

Additional Advocate General appearing for the respondent No.1

and Mr. Dron Kaushik, learned counsel for the respondent No.2

agreed for final disposal of the writ petition.

7) Heard the learned counsel appearing for both the parties.

8) The grounds raised by the learned counsel for the

petitioner are that the impugned order of the respondents was

[2025:RJ-JD:17465] (4 of 7) [CW-6497/2025]

passed without any notice to the petitioner. The petitioner was not

heard before adverse order was passed against him, which

constitutes a violation of the principles of natural justice. Thus,

writ petition is maintainable. The second argument is that the

respondents have relied upon Condition No. 8 of the Contract to

cancel the lease and take possession of the property before the

completion of the contract period. It is the case of the petitioner

that Condition No. 8 do not apply to cases where the authorities

intend to terminate the contract prematurely. This condition is

applicable only to the initial stage of entering into the contract.

9) Per contra, the learned AAG and learned counsel

appearing for the respondent No.2 submitted that writ petition is

not maintainable in contractual matter and appropriate forum is

civil court. It is also contended that 2nd respondent trust is entitled

to cancel contract without any notice and such power is exercised

as per Condition No. 8 of the contract. It is also their argument

that Condition No. 8 enables them to terminate the contract

prematurely and it is not confined only to the initial stage of the

contract but any time.

10) I have considered the contentions of both the parties and

perused the orders impugned as well as material available on

record.

11) It is needless to say that there is no absolute bar in

entertaining the writ petition in contractual matter but there are

exceptions. The writ petition is maintainable in contractual matters

if the State acts arbitrarily or discriminately, violating

constitutional principles like Articles 14 and 21. It is an admitted

[2025:RJ-JD:17465] (5 of 7) [CW-6497/2025]

fact that the impugned orders were passed without any notice to

the petitioner. This action of the respondents clearly amounts to a

violation of the principles of natural justice. The impugned orders

are liable to be set aside on this ground alone.

12) The facts disclose that the original contract period was

from 15.02.2015 to 14.02.2020, and a fresh contract was entered

into on 11.02.2020 for five years commencing from 15.02.2020 to

14.02.2025. The document (Annexure-4) is the order extending

the original period of the contract from 15.02.2020 to 14.02.2025,

based on the resolution of the Trust. Subsequently, a further

meeting was held by the Trust on 25.06.2020, during which it was

decided to extend the contract period, taking into consideration

the prevailing pandemic situation. The Trust decided to extend the

period of lease for one year and adjusted the lease amount of

initial one year in the next year and this means that the

commencement of the five-year lease period would be from

01.04.2021 to 14.02.2026, instead of 15.02.2020 to 14.02.2025.

The proceedings issued by the Secretary, UIT (Annexure-7),

clearly show that the contract period shall commence from

01.04.2021 to 14.02.2026. The main ground, as stated in the

resolution of the Trust during its meeting dated 04.03.2025, is the

decision to pre-determine the lease period by canceling the lease

contract on the grounds that there were some corrections in the

contract document concerning the lease period. As evident from

the final extension order, contained in Annexure-7 and supported

by the minutes of the Trust, it is clearly indicated that the one-

year period has been waived off for the purpose of counting the

[2025:RJ-JD:17465] (6 of 7) [CW-6497/2025]

five-year lease period, which was originally granted to the

petitioner. The authorities, by granting such an extension, treated

the commencement of the contract from 01.04.2021 to

14.02.2026, instead of 15.02.2020 to 14.02.2025. Had there been

no extension under the minutes of the meeting and the

proceedings of the Secretary, UIT, the contention regarding the

alteration of the contract period under the contract would have

been significant. Although the alteration was made, it appears that

the years have been modified, but this alteration is supported by

minutes of the Trust as well as the proceedings of the Secretary

issued.

13) The respondents have relied on Condition No. 8 of the

contract to invoke the pre-determination of the contract. English

translation of Condition No.8 of the original contract reads as

follows:

8. The Chairman Nagar Vikas Nyas, Sri Ganganagar will have full authority to accept/reject the contract, for which it will not be necessary to give reasons.

13) A reading of the above condition clearly shows that the

Chairman of Nagar Vikas Nyas, Sri Ganganagar, has the right to

reject the contract, and such a condition cannot be used to pre-

determine the contract. The Chairman of the UIT has discretion at

the initial stage of the contract either to accept or reject the

contract. Once the contract is concluded and the respondents in

order to pre-determine the contract, they must demonstrate that

such a power exists with them. The only power traceable is

[2025:RJ-JD:17465] (7 of 7) [CW-6497/2025]

Condition No. 8. However, Condition No. 8 do not enable them to

pre-determine the contract. Therefore, the impugned order is

liable to be set aside.