- (1.) The present writ petition has been preferred mainly for the reasons that the petitioner was allotted land Municipal Survey Plot No. 1640, Ward No. I1, measuring 2800 sq. ft., situated nearby Ranchi Lake, Ranchi on licence basis for the payment of the rent at the rate referred to in the agreement Clause-2. There is also Clause-9 for renewal of the licence and therefore, application for renewal of the licence was preferred. Thereafter, a show cause notice was given for cancellation of the licence and ultimately, an order was passed at Annexure-19, by the respondents dated 10th November, 2008 whereby, it has been ordered that the petitioner should remove all his structures and should hand over the key of the aforesaid premises to Ranchi Municipal Corporation and against this order at Annexure-19, the present petition has been preferred.
(2.) Learned Counsel for the petitioner has argued out the case, in detail, and has pointed out that the petitioner had applied for grant of the land, pursuant to an order passed by this Court in W.P.(C) No. 3591 of 2006 dated 22nd August, 2006 (Annexure-2 to the memo of the petition). Thereafter, the land bearing Municipal Survey No. 1640, Ward No. II measuring 2800 sq.ft. situated near Ranchi Lake, was given to the petitioner description whereof, has been given as per 'Schedule' to the agreement (Annexure-3 to the memo of the petition) and an agreement was entered into on 12th December, 2006 between the petitioner and Ranchi Municipal Corporation. It is also submitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that relevant clauses of the agreement at Annexure-3, are Clause Nos. 9 and 10, which read as under: 9. That subject to the fulfillment of the conditions as embodied herein above the licence may be renewed by the licenser for a further period of one year only on such terms and conditions as may be license in favour of licensee till the licensee does not violate terms and conditions of the licence. 10. That the licensee will develop and maintain the adjacent site for beautification as per plan SK1 (Boating) SK 4 & 5 (Banquet/Restaurant) and SK 7 (Garden & Children Park) at their cost and in accordance with the DPR plan of RMC vide report dated 15/4/2003 and will service tax rules and will be responsible for the same. It will be continued to renew every year. (Emphasis Supplied) In view of the aforesaid Clauses, the petitioner developed and maintained the adjacent site for beautification, as per plan S.K.-I (Boating Ramp), S.K.-4 (Banquet Hall), S.K.-5 (Restaurant) and S.K.-7 (Garden and Children Park). All these constructions have been constructed at the cost of the petitioner and sizeable amount to the tune of approximately fifty lakhs have been invested, by now, and consequently, the whole nearby area has been developed at the behest of the petitioner. The petitioner, thereafter, applied for renewal of the licence and for no justifiable reasons, renewal of licence has been denied on the ground that there are some violations of the Clauses of the agreement and an order has been passed at Annexure-19, to the effect that the explanation given to the show cause notice is not up to the mark of satisfaction and there are violations of the conditions of the licence, as per Annexure-19. It is also submitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the reasons given in the impugned order at Annexure-19 are absolutely wrong, vague and arbitrary. Which conditions are violated that is not at all, referred in the impugned order. In fact, the petitioner has not violated any of the conditions of the licence. The order passed at Annexure-19 is a non speaking order. It is further submitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that again, a letter was written dated 14th November, 2008 at Annexure-20 and detailed explanation was given. Similarly, further letter was written on 4th June, 2009 by the petitioner, which is at Annexure-22 and again, detailed explanation has been given. The show cause notice, which was been given on 19th December, 2007 at Annexure-16, though has been replied, in detail, no detailed order has been passed by the respondents, at all, deciding the show cause notice and now, the respondents have sealed the premises of the present petitioner and again, a notice was given on 6th March, 2010, which is annexed with the interlocutory application, preferred by the petitioner in I.A. No. 1092 of 2010. Petitioner has invested sizeable amount. Looking to the aforesaid Clauses especially Clause No. 10 of the agreement, the licensee i.e. the petitioner has to develop and maintain the adjacent site for beautification and therefore, the petitioner has developed the adjacent site also and to protect the adjacent site, all bare minimum precautions, which are required to be taken has taken by putting a small fence so that the cattle may not destroy the beautification of the licensee land. So far as the boating is concerned, it is also permitted as per Clause-10 and plan S.K.-1. Despite this permission, a show cause notice was given that why the petitioner is doing preparation for boating etc. So far as the encroachment is concerned, the petitioner has not encroached any land whatsoever, Clause 10 has been lost sight of, by the concerned respondent authorities. Adjacent site has to be developed and maintained by the petitioner and the petitioner has tried to comply with these conditions otherwise, the petitioner has not violated any of the conditions and so called violation has properly explained to the respondents. If Clause-10 is properly read, there is no encroachment by the petitioner, at all. Nonetheless, the petitioner is ready and willing to demolish any of the constructions, which is pointed out by Ranchi Municipal Corporation, which is not permitted as per the licence and sanctioned plan. Likewise, the petitioner is also ready and willing to hand over the adjacent site, which has been developed by the petitioner, as per Clause 10. Let the respondents take the responsibility to develop and maintain the adjacent site for beautification though, it was given to the petitioner, as per Clause-10 to the licence. The petitioner is unnecessarily incurring expenses for beautification and development of adjacent land in fulfillment of the conditions, imposed under Clause 10. Compliance of Clause 10, has been treated as encroachment. The petitioner has no objection if this liability is removed from the petitioner's side. So far as the payment of the licence fee is concerned, it is submitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the licence fee is payable, as per the Clause-2 of the agreement. Clause 2 of the agreement reads as under: 2. That the licensee shall pay licence fee for the period of the licence as mentioned hereinabove calculate @ Rs. 5/- per sq. feet monthly which shall be payable per month by license from the date of completion of project after due approval of Plan, till continuance of licence. (Emphasis Supplied) Thus, in view of the aforesaid Clause-2, the amount of the licence fee was payable from the date of the completion of the project after due approval of the plan, till the continuation of the licence. It is submitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is ready and willing to deposit whatever the amount the respondents are suggesting within 48 hours, but, the fact remains that there is no violation of Clause-2 by the petitioner because the respondents have not intimated the date of the completion of the project, after the due approval of the plan. This date is not at all, informed to the petitioner by the respondents. Nonetheless, the amount, which is reflected in the supplementary counter affidavit, filed by the respondents especially in paragraph 5 thereof, that sum of Rs. 3,36,000/- is due from the petitioner. Under protest, the petitioner is ready and willing to deposit this amount to the respondents. The respondents have not given any completion certificate and therefore, as per Clause-2, the amount was not deposited otherwise, the petitioner is ready and willing to deposit either before this Court or before the Ranchi Municipal Corporation, the aforesaid amount. Thus, the show cause notice, which was given dated 19th December, 2007 at Annexure-16 is absolutely false and frivolous. The petitioner is not making any profit by charging Rs. 5.00 and Rs. 3.00 as entry fee, because, as per Clause-10, the petitioner has to develop and maintain the adjacent site for beautification for protection, lighting, gardening, watering etc. sizeable amount is being invested by the petitioner and to meet with this cost only, the aforesaid amount of Rs. 5.00 and Rs. 3.00 is taken as charge from major and minor persons, respectively as entry fee. If the respondents are taking away this liability, imposed upon the petitioner under Clause-10, then there is no question of any charges whatsoever arises, henceforth and therefore, let the respondents be directed to decide the application for renewal of the licence by quashing the non speaking order, passed by the respondents at Annexure-19 to the memo of the petition. Which clause is violated is not, at all, reflected in the impugned order. What is not up to the mark or to the satisfaction is not pointed out in the impugned order at Annexure-19 to the memo of the petition. A lump sum and general order has been passed by the respondents at Annexure-19. Whenever respondents are rejecting the application for renewal of licence, the reasons must have been assigned for non renewal of licence and exact violations of Clauses of the agreement should have been pointed out in the impugned order. Looking to the order at Annexure-19, nothing is reflected in the impugned order and therefore, the order at Annexure-19 is an arbitrary order and therefore, the same deserves to be quashed and set aside.
(3.) Learned Counsel for the petitioner vehemently submitted that on the basis of the decision rendered by the Supreme Court in the case of D. Nataraja Mudaliar v. The State Transport Authority, Madras, 1979 AIR(SC) 114 in paragraph 8, that right of renewal is greater than right of grant of the licence because before renewal, there is sizeable investment and by investment, the petitioner change or alter its position, which creates estoppel by action, as per Section 115 of the Indian Evidence Act.;