Punjab State and Another vs Ravi Dutt Saini

Mahesh Grover, J.—This Regular Second Appeal is directed against judgments and decrees dated 8.10.2001 and 1.10.2009 passed respectively by the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Rupnagar (hereinafter described as `the trial Court'') and the Additional District Judge (Ad hoc), Fast Track Court, Ropar (referred to hereinafter as `the first appellate Court''). C.M.No.1373-C of 2010 has been moved u/s 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of 16 days'' delay in its filing, whereas C.M.No.1374-C of 2010 has been filed for staying the operation of the impugned judgments and decrees during pendency thereof.

The plaintiff-respondent had filed a suit against the defendants-appellants for recovery of Rs. 70,0000/- as damages sustained by him on account of cancellation of the permission given by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Mohali - defendant No. 2 for holding of cultural Nite at Dusshera Ground, Mohali on 5.12.1998. He had also claimed future and further interest at the rate of 12% per annum.

It was pleaded by the plaintiff that he was engaged in the entertainment business and was functioning through his sole proprietorship firm - "World Class Entertainers" with head office at Hoshiarpur and a branch office at Chandigarh; that his firm used to arrange programmes of entertainment by bringing singers and other star artists; that a cultural Nite was planned to be held in Mohali on 5.12.1998, that for that purpose, Mr. Daler Mehandi, a renowned singer was engaged and a total sum of Rs. 12.50 lacs by way of three demand drafts was paid to him; that another sum of Rs. 1,50,000/- was paid in cash to Mr. Daler Mehandi for bringing his paraphernalia which included sound system, light system, stage, staff, their fare as well as comparer; that his firm had also hired an office in Chandigarh at the rate of Rs. 8500/- for first month and at the rate of Rs. 9000/- for later two months; that a residential house in Mohali was also taken on a monthly rent of Rs. 2200/-; that an application dated 17.11.1998 was submitted to defendant No. 2 for granting permission to organize the Nite and for providing adequate security for 5.12.1998 at the time of show; that the necessary sanction was granted by defendant No. 2 and a copy of the sanction order was sent to the Station House Officer, Mohali, as also to the Municipal Corporation for making security arrangements and for arranging fire brigade etc.; that tickets for the show of the denomination of Rs. 1000/-; Rs. 500/- and Rs. 200/- to the tune of 5000, 5000 and 65,000 respectively were got printed; that out of these tickets about 8000 tickets were sold through sale counters and the rest were to be purchased by the viewers on the day of the show; that Mr. Daler Mehandi reached Chandigarh on 4.12.1998 and was made to stay in Hotel Sunbeam, Sector 22, Chandigarh; that a press conference was also held by him on 4.12.1998 and the entire shamiana and stage were made ready for the show; that a generator set for providing uninterrupted electricity was also arranged for which a sum of Rs. 4000/- was given as advance; that Rs. 75000/- were paid to the persons who arranged outer fencing for the show and Rs. 27000/- were paid as hotel charges; that the entire expenses to the tune of Rs. 34000/- for stay of Mr.Daler Mehandi and his staff and for holding press conference in the Hotel Sunbeam were borne by the plaintiff out of which Rs. 7000/- were excluded by the Hotel management on account of non-performance of the show due to withdrawal of the permission; that Mr. Daler Mehandi had brought his stage etc. in four trucks for which octroi to the tune of Rs. 1,32,000/- were claimed, but due to cancellation of the show,the trucks wee allowed to go back by the contracter after charging Rs. 32,000/-; that the permission for holding the show was cancelled on flimsy grounds, viz. the congregation at Anandpur Sahib for which police force was required; that the said congregation had already concluded on 24.11.1998 and in fact, the permission was cancelled due to influence of a party from Delhi which was going to organize a cultural night on 26.12.1998 at Chandigarh; amd that more than Rs. 20 lacs had already been spent by the plaintiff for making arrangements for the show and a sum of Rs. 50 lacs was expected as profit therefrom.

Upon notice, the defendants appeared and contested the suit by filing a written statement. They denied the averments regarding payment to the performer and the arrangements made for the show. Rest of the averments were denied for want of knowledge, but it was pleaded that because there was existing congregation at Anandpur Sahib, the police was required to maintain law and order there and was not available to carry out security arrangements for the event being organized by the plaintiff.

As many as nineteen issues were framed on the basis of the pleadings of the parties and after appraisal of the entire evidence on record, the trial Court partly decreed the suit and passed a decree for recovery of Rs. 30,74,012/- with proportionate costs. The trial Court concluded that necessary arrangements for the show had been made by the plaintiff and it was put to great loss on account of sudden cancellation of the permission and that there was no justificable reason for revocation of such permission. However, the liberty was given to the State to recover the amount from the officers at fault as well as from the persons, who manipulated the record to justify the action of the cancelling authority. Future interest at the rate of 12% per annum was also awarded from the date of cancellation of the show, i.e., 5.12.1998, till the date of decree and at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of decree till realization.

Feeling aggrieved, the defendants preferred an appeal which was dismissed by the first appellate Court and the findings recorded by the trial Court were affirmed. This has resulted in the filing of the instant appeal.

Learned Counsel for the appellants have contended that the findings recorded by the Courts below are erroneous and perverse and deserve to be set aside. He further contended that the appellants were very well within their right to revoke the permission and cancel the same and that there was no binding contract between them and the plaintiff. He submitted that the Courts below have failed to appreciate the fact that the permission granted to the plaintiff was withdrawn due to inadequate availability of police force because it was required at Anandpur Sahib in connection with the preparation of Tri-century celebrations which was an international religious function. He,thus, prayed that the impugned judgments and decrees be set aside.

I have thoughtfully considered the contentions/submission of the learned Counsel for the appellants and have carefully gone through the impugned judgments.

There is no dispute that the appellants had granted permission for the event to be organised on 5.12.1998 and the plaintiff had made necessary arrangements and incurred huge expenses for the same. The said sanction was accorded on 20.11.1998 and a copy thereof was forwarded to the Station House Officer, Mohali. At that point of time, the holding of congregation at Anandpur Sahib was clearly to the knowledge of the concerned authority and, therefore, it was his duty to have declined the permission then and there. It is not the case of the appellants that the event at Anandpur Sahib was decided to be organized at the last minute so as to require the police force to be sent there as a measure of extreme exigency. The Station House Officer, Police Station, Mohali was duly informed as to the factum of holding of event on 5.12.1998.

Even if the argument that the police force was required at Anandpur Sahib in order to make security arrangements there, is to be accepted, there is no material to show that the police of Mohali was required to be deputed at Anandpur Sahib and that there was actual deployment of the police force at that place. In such an eventuality, the plea of the appellants is totally without any merit.

The plaintiff, who was granted sanction, was, therefore, put to a great loss in the event of revocation of the permission, more-so when the sanction was unconditional and did not contemplate revocation or was not contingent to any other condition.

A feeble contention was raised by the counsel for the appellants that one of the conditions of the sanction was the payment of entertainment tax.

However, from the pleadings put forwarded by the appellants, it is not clear as to whether the payment of entertainment tax was a prerequisite to the holding of show and, therefore, this contention is liable to be rejected as it is not the case of the appellants that the sanction was withdrawn on this ground.

No other point was argued on the point of quantum of damages awarded by the Courts below.

Moreover, the appeal has been filed after a delay of 16 days and no plausible explanation has been put forward for condonation thereof.

As a sequel to above discussion, the application condonation of delay as well as the appeal are dismissed.

In view of the above, the application for interim stay is also rejected.