A.M.KHANWILKAR, J. - (1.) These appeals emanate from the judgment and interim orders dated 24th May, 2005 and 5th July, 2005 passed by the High Court of Himachal Pradesh at Shimla in Civil Writ Petition No.555 of 2004, during the pendency of the said writ petition. Civil Appeal No.3392 of 2006 has been filed by the State of Himachal Pradesh (for short "the State") against the judgment and order dated 5th July, 2005, whereas the other two appeals, i.e. Civil Appeal Nos.3393 & 3394 of 2006 have been filed by the Himachal Pradesh Tourism Development Corporation (for short "HPTDC") against the judgment and orders dated 24th May, 2005 and 5th July, 2005, respectively.
(2.) The stated writ petition was filed by the original respondent No.1, who died during the pendency of the proceedings in this Court. He claimed to be a public spirited person. He was aggrieved by the acts of commission and omission of the Municipal Corporation, Shimla, whereby the property owned and possessed by the Municipal Corporation was leased out to HPTDC at a rate much lower than the prevailing market rate, without conducting auction or resorting to tender process. Additionally, the Municipal Corporation had failed to recover the municipal taxes from HPTDC, including the rental/lease money, which was quite substantial, causing loss to the Municipal Corporation. This is the crux of the grievance made in the aforementioned writ petition, for which following reliefs were claimed: "(I) Respondents may kindly be restrained from allotting the above mentioned stall to H.P.M.C. which is loss-making venture in public interest, or in the alternative quash the said allotment to the respondent No.3 and disposed of the same in accordance with law and direct the respondents to demolish the illegal structures. (II) Respondent Municipal Corporation be directed to recover its outstanding legal dues from various governmental authorities and individuals. (III) The respondent Municipal Corporation be directed to reject its leased out properties to a realistic revision of (monthly lease amounts) monthly rentals. (IV) The respondents may kindly be directed to produce the entire records pertaining to this case for the kind perusal of this Hon'ble Court. (V) Any other writ, order or direction deemed fit and proper in the facts and circumstances mentioned herein above may very kindly be passed in favour of the petitioner and against the respondents. (VI) Cost of the writ petition may kindly be granted throughout in favour of the petitioner."
(3.) The Municipal Corporation as well as the State resisted the said writ petition, by filing affidavits. The State asserted that the land in question is owned by the Government of Himachal Pradesh. The entry in the revenue record indicates that the possession of the property was with the Municipal Corporation since 1977. Be that as it may, the property known as "Goofa", situated at the Ridge in Shimla Town, was let out to HPTDC. A lease document was executed on 2nd January, 1978 stipulating the terms and conditions of the lease. The differences between the Municipal Corporation and HPTDC regarding the rent were resolved in terms of the award passed by the Secretary (LSG) to the Government of Himachal Pradesh. The Municipal Corporation and HPTDC were bound by the said award, whereunder enhanced rent in respect of the subject properties was specified. The Municipal Corporation in its meeting held on 20th July, 1988, had taken a decision regarding the increase of rent payable by HPTDC. The thrust of the stand taken by the State was that HPTDC, being a State Corporation, was obliged to engage in promoting tourism within the State and in terms of the tourism policy of the State, the directions given by the State were required to be carried out by HPTDC. The possession of the subject premises by the HPTDC cannot be equated with a private lease or occupation by a private individual, as the activities of the HPTDC were to effectuate the larger public interest and tourism within the State. Significantly, the lease agreement between HPTDC and the Municipal Corporation was still subsisting.;