AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
S.S. Grewal, J.—The petitioner, M/s. "Indo-American Hybrid Seeds, an International Organization has filed the present petition prohibiting the respondents from cancelling the permission granted to the petitioner firm to organize an exhibition in the premises of Hotel Shivalik View, a unit of Chandigarh Industrial and Tourism Development Corporation, from 1st of December, 1994 to 4th of December, 1994.
According to the averments made in the petition in the year, 1993 the petitioner firm had rented approximately 30,000 sq. ft. vacant space inside the premises of Hotel Shivalik View respondent No. 2 towards the southern side of its premises for organising and exhibiting called Horticultural Expo-93 from March 19 to March 21 on payment of Rs.34,500/-. It was next pleaded that the petitioner firm planned to organize a similar exhibition but on a larger scale to consolidate the gains already made in the States of Punjab, Haryana and Union Territory, Chandigarh and other surrounding States. The petitioner firm approached respondent No. 2 vide lett''er dated 8th of Oct. 1994 copy whereof is Annexure P-2 on the record, wherein it was proposed to organize exhibition on the same site of respondent No. 2 for the period of 1st of Dec. to 4th of Dec. 1994 so that they could put their exhibits including green house from 20th Nov. 1994 onwards and dismantle the same upto 9th of Dec. 1994. Negotiations were held between the petitioner firm through its branch office with respondent No. 2 and it was agreed that a sum of Rs. 50,000/- will be payable for the use of the site for an area of about 20,000 sq. ft. It was also agreed that necessary facilities like access to the site, electricity and water connections will be made as in the previous year. The area of 20,000 sq. ft. was also specified by the representative of respondent No. 2 on the site and it was agreed that Rs. 10,000/- shall be paid as security and the agreed sum of Rs, 50,000/- will be payable before 20th of Nov. 1994. It was next pleaded that copy of granting permission by respondent No. 4 on behalf of respondent No. 2 was handed by respondenthe letter t No. 4 to Shri Ravinder Kumar Branch Incharge of the petitioner on 16th of Nov. 1994 (Annex. P3). In the meanwhile the required sum of Rs. 10,000/-had been paid by way of bank draft on I Oth of Nov. l994 and cheque for Rs. 50,000/- dated 12-11-1994 was deposited with respondent No. 2 on 14th of Nov. 1994 and both these payments have since been collected by respondent No. 2. Certificate of confirmation about encashment of Rupees 50,000/- by respondent No. 2 issued by Canara Bank is Annexure P4 on the record. It was also pleaded that the petitioner approached Chandigarh Administration in the Electricity Department for giving electric connection at the exhibition site to facilitate the installation of the equipment and fixures of the petitioner firm so as to be ready by 1st of Dec. 1994 and that necessary electric meter has been installed by the Electricity Department on the request of the petitioner on 19-11-1994 as per Annexure P6 and that organization of the exhibition involves:--
(a) erection of green house of 30'' x 102'' in which various exhibits would be placed.
b) Air conditioning of the Green House by installation of appropriate coolers.
c) collection of necessary exhibits from India and abroad from various suppliers to demonstrate to the growers, the latest techniques and achievements in the field of Horticulture.
d) tying up on the various agencies and the transportation etc. of the exhibits and other material within time.
The petitioner firm has also incurred considerable expenditure for this purpose. Large quantity of materials of the petitioner firm, the Various installations equipment and cooling equipment has already reached the site and is lying at Hotel Shivalik in the exhibition premises since 20th of Nov. 1994 where work for fixing of the various equipment has started. On 20th of Nov. 1994, respondent No. 4 personally visited the site and tried to stop the work of installation at the site. It was explained to him by the representative of the petitioner firm at site that in view of the commitment made by respondents and full payment having been made it is not proper to interfere with installation work that soon a letter dated 20-11-1994 was sent by respondent No. 4 for stopping the installation work. The petitioner firm immediately sent a reply explaining the position. It was also pleaded that if the respondents withdraw the permission to use the exhibition site, the petitioner firm would suffer immense immeasurable financial loss. Apprehending that the respondent Nos. 1 to3 would send formal communication to the petitioner firm withdrawing the permission already granted to hold the exhibition, the petitioner firm has approached this Court mainly on the ground that withdrawal of permission is arbitrary and violative of the right of the petitioner firm under Arts. 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India.
In the written statement filed on behalf of the respondent Nos. 1 to 4, preliminary objection was raised that the petitioner can seek appropriate relief including damages before the competent Court for alleged violation of contractual obligations which is not statutory in nature and that this court would refuse to adjudicate upon the violation or otherwise of purely contractual obligation between the two Companies; that the space in question could not permitted to be used for a paltry sum of Rs. 50,000/- particularly when the answering respondent is an Organisation of repute and Hotel Shivalik is a prominent Hotel of Chandigarh. It was also pleaded that a space right opposite the space in question is being let out by Confederation of Indian Industries for the same days and for the same purpose at much higher rates ranging from Rs.400/- per sq. ft. for open space and Rs. 1000/- per sq. ft. approximately for covered space. It was further pleaded that as per settled business practice the respondents have received about 10 per cent amount as advance and not the entire amount from the petitioner firm and that the petitioner firm in March, 1993 paid an advance of Rs. 5000/-out of a total agreed amount of Rs. 34500/-. It was further pleaded that no record concern- ing any completed contract has been produced by the petitioner firm and the respondents could not possibly have accepted the terms less than the terms being offered by Confederation of Indain Industries for a space much less advantageous and just opposite the space in question.
The learned counsel for the parties were heard.
The learned counsel for the respondents relied upon the authority of the apex court in Bareilly Development Authority and Another Vs. Ajay Pal Singh and Others, , wherein it was observed that when the contract entered into by the State is non-statutory and purely contractual the relations are no longer governed by the constitutional provisions but by the legally valid contract which determines the rights and obligations of the parties inter se. In this sphere, the parties can only claim rights conferred upon them by the contract in the abence of any statutory obligations of the part of the authority in the said contractual field. It is also settled that no writ of order can be issued under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India so as to compel the authorities to remedy a breach of contract pure and simple.
The facts of the aforesaid authority were entirely different inasmuch as the Development Authority with a view of easing the acute housing problem in the District, undertook the construction of dwelling units for people belonging to different income groups and there was no pressing or immediate emergency or necessity like the one in the instant case, wherein the entire object for holding international exhibition by the petitioner firm commencing from 1st of Dec. to 4th of Dec. 1994 shall be frustrated. Rather in view of the grave emergency and particularly in view of the fact that the violation of the contractual obligations shall have far reaching consequences not only with regard to the parties to this petition but shall certainly deprive the general public including farmers, growers and other persons in the public at large in this part of the country from witnessing the demonstration concerning American Hybrid Seeds and getting advantage of modern technology in production of plants, seeds of vegetables and flowers etc.
We find support in our view from the authority of the apex Court in Kumari Shrilekha Vidyarthi and Others Vs. State of U.P. and Others, , wherein following the authorities of apex Court in Dwarkadas Marfatia and Sons Vs. Board of Trustees of the Port of Bombay, , and Mahabir Auto Stores and others Vs. Indian Oil Corporation and others, , their Lordships observed that the ultimate impact of all actions of the State or a public body being undoubtedly on public interest, the requisite public element for this purpose is present also in contractual matters. Therefore, it would be difficult and unrealistic to exclude the State actions in contractual matters, after the contract has been made, from the purview of judicial review to test its validity on the anvil of Art. 14.
The preliminary objection raised by the learned counsel for the respondents is thus hardly tenable in the circumstances of the present case.
Both the parties have admitted the authorisation letter Annexure P3 whereby the petitioner-firm was authorised to display their exhibition in the outdoor premises of Hotel Shivalik View for the period from 1-12-1994 to 4-12-1994 and was further authorise to take temporary electricity connection from U.T. Electricity Department for the above-said purpose with effect from 20th of Nov. 1994. This letter according to the petitioner-firm was received on 16th of Nov. 1994. The stand taken by the respondents that vide letter dated 14th of Nov. 1994, the petitioner-firm was only offered a part of additional parking area for exhibition from 1 st Dec. to 4th Dec. 1994 measuring approximately 6300 sq. ft. on payment of Rs. 1.00 lac per day as rent for the actual dates of Exhibition i.e. 1st of December to 4th of December, 1994 both days inclusive and in addition to pay Rs. 10,000/- as refundable security separately to cover any damages done to the hotel property in the course of exhibition or that from 27th of Nov. 1994 onwards the petitioner-firm was required to pay Rs. 25,000/- per day as space utilization charges which works out to Rs. 1.00 lac or that the petitioner-firm was liable to pay Rs. 5.00 lacs in addition to Rs. I0,000/- as refundable security or other condition to pay 10 per cent, of this amount in advance in token of acceptance of terms and conditions and the balance is to be paid on 26th of Nov. 1994 or other conditions in the said letter Annexure R-1 are conspicuous by their absence in letter Annexure P-3. Thus at present no implicit reliance can be placed on letter Annexure R-1 set up by the respondents. However, there wilt be no legal bar for the respondents to set up this letter in subsequent connected litigation.
Even otherwise, by virtue of the authorisation letter Annexure P-3 the respondents had authorised and permitted the petitioner-firm to hold exhibition in the outdoor premises of Hotel Shivalik View from 1st of December to 4th of December, 1994 without specifying the sum of money or charges which the petitioner-firm was required to pay to the respondents. It is pertinent to note that a cheque for payment of Rupees 50,000/- issued on 12-11-1994 by the petitioner-firm has duly been debited in the account of Hotel Shivalik View (CITCO) respondent No. 2 on 19th of Nov. 1994.
Another significant aspect of the case is that on the authorisalion of the respondents referred to above, the petitioner-firm obtained temporary electric meter connection from the Electricity Department of the U.T Administration as far back as 19th of Nov. 1994 as per Annexure P6.
From the aforesaid circumstances, it is quite apparent that the respondents by their conduct made a clear and unequivocal promise to the petitioner-firm intending to create legal relationship whereby the petitioner-firm had been authorised to hold the exhibition in near future i.e. from 1st of Dec. to 4th of Dec. 1994 and acting on such promise the petitioner-firm is stated to have incurred considerable expenditure for bringing machinery and other necessary equipment for making proper arrangements for holding the aforesaid exhibition. Thus in view of the fact that the petitioner-firm had acted''on the promise given by the respondents, it would be inequitable to allow the respondents to retrace their steps to the disadvantage of the petitioner-firm thereby frustrating the efforts of the peti- tioner-firm to hold the exhibition on the basis of such promise on the proposed dates at this late stage, by raising dispute about the sum of money payable by petitioner-firm or concerning the area to be utilized by the petitioner-firm. With regard to the latter the petitioner-firm themselves have claimed much lesser area than the area given to them for the same purpose for holding another exhibition in the year 1993 and that too for an amount less than Rs. 50,000/- which they have already paid. Thus in view of the principle of promissory estoppel, the respondents cannot be permitted to disallow the holding of the exhibition on the aforesaid proposed dates. We are fortified in our view from the authority of the apex Court in Motilal Padampat Sugar Mills Co. Ltd. Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others, .
For the foregoing reasons, we hereby partly allow this writ petition and direct the respondents to permit the petitioner-firm to hold exhibition on the proposed dates i.e. from 1st of Dec. 1994 to 4th of Dec. 1994 without demanding any more amount than that already deposited by the petitioner-firm at present. The respondents are also directed to provide all the facilities to the petitioner-firm to set up their exhibition in the open space in the light of the observations made above. However, we leave the question of determination of payment of total charges open, with regard to the aforesaid exhibition by the petitioner-firm to the respondents, which, the respondents may agitate before the Civil Court after the exhibition, if so advised. Copy of order be given dasti.
Petition allowed.