The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(C) No. 1856 of 2023 ‘Vesper Resorts and Caterers Private Limited’ having its office at Plot No. 402, Cooperative Colony, Bokaro Steel City, P.O. Sector 2, P.S. City P.S., District Bokaro, Jharkhand through its Director namely Vishal aged about 40 years S/o Parmatma Sharma, R/o Plot No. 402, Cooperative Colony, Bokaro Steel City, P.O. Sector 2, P.S. City P.S., District Bokaro, Jharkhand Petitioner … … Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand through Secretary, Tourism Department, Government of Jharkhand, having its Office at Project Bhawan, P.O. Dhurwa, P.S. Jagarnathpur, Ranchi, Jharkhand 2. The Managing Director, Jharkhand Tourism Development Corporation Limited having its office at Mahatma Gandhi Marg, P.O. GPO, P.S. Kotwali, District Ranchi, Jharkhand 3. The General Manager, Jharkhand Tourism Development Corporation Limited having its office at Mahatma Gandhi Marg, P.O. GPO, P.S. Kotwali, District Ranchi, Jharkhand … … Respondents --- CORAM :HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY
Legal Reasoning
For the Petitioner For the Resp.-State For the Resp. Nos. 2 & 3 : Mr. Ritesh Kumar Gupta, Advocate --- : Mr.Diwakar Upadhyay, Advocate : Mr. Aditya Raman, Advocate Mr. Rishabh Kaushal, Advocate --- 03/25.04.2023 Learned counsel for the parties are present. 2. This writ petition has been filed for the following reliefs: “a. For issuance of appropriate writ(s), order(s), direction(s) in the nature of certiorari for quashing of the Letter No. 14/2023 dated 04.01.2023 (Ann-9) issued by the Managing Director, Jharkhand Tourism Development Corporation Limited whereby and where under the respondent has cancelled the Authorization Agreement entered between the parties for the development of Hotel Sheetal Vihar, Barhi Hazaribagh under the PPP Framework on Develop, operate, Maintain and Transfer (DOMT) Basis and had further forfeited the Performance Security of Rs. 2,41,000/- on the ground that the petitioner has not deposited the annual license fees amounting to Rs. 9,87,196/- inclusive of interest @ 18% Per annum. And/Or b. For issuance of appropriate writ(s), order(s), direction(s) in the nature of mandamus commanding upon the respondents to immediately and forthwith allow the petitioner to use Hotel Sheetal Vihar, Barhi Hazaribagh under the PPP Framework on Develop, operate, Maintain and Transfer (DOMT) Basis after 2 approving the Project Implementation Plan and the grant of Project Completion Certificate.” Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that Jharkhand 3. Tourism Development Corporation –JTDC had issued a request of proposal for selection of developer for development of hotel Sheetal Vihar, Barhi. The petitioner was given the letter of award dated 03.06.2019 being a successful bidder for undertaking the development of the hotel and JTDC entered into a project development and management agreement with Vesper Resorts and Caterers Private Limited for development of the hotel. The agreement between the parties had to be executed for a period of 15 years. 4. It is submitted that the petitioner has been requesting the General Manager, Jharkhand Tourism Development Corporation, Ranchi to approve the project implementation plan and also to issue the project completion certificate in order to start the commercial operation of the hotel, but instead of doing the needful, a letter dated 25.05.2022 was issued by the General Manager, Jharkhand Tourism Development Corporation Limited directing the petitioner to deposit Rs. 5,82,979/- being the yearly license fee for the period 19.08.2020 till 18.08.2022, failing which the agreement entered into between the parties would be cancelled. The petitioner again issued letter dated 16.09.2022 requesting the aforesaid authority to issue him the required approval. 5. The learned counsel has submitted that although the petitioner was not supposed to deposit the aforesaid amount, but still the petitioner has deposited the same under protest. 6. By the impugned order dated 04.01.2023, the Managing Director has cancelled the authorization agreement and has forfeited the performance security of Rs. 2,41,000/- on the ground that the annual license fee of Rs. 9,87,196/- inclusive of interest @18.5% has not been deposited. 7. From the sequence of events, as submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner, it appears that on 28.03.2023, the petitioner has paid an amount of Rs. 8,97,002/-. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is ready to run the hotel, but the agreement has been terminated. He has also submitted that huge investments have already 3 been made by the petitioner to make the hotel operational and on account of non-issuance of the completion certificate and non- approval of the plan, the project has not become operational . 9. Learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that the dispute between the parties has arisen out of agreement and as per Article 12 of the agreement, there is a mechanism for dispute resolution. The learned counsel has assured this Court that if the petitioner invokes the mechanism of dispute resolution, appropriate decision will be taken such that the dispute is amicably resolved between the parties. He has also submitted that while taking a decision under the dispute resolution mechanism the respondents will take care of the fact that the petitioner claims to have made huge investment in the project. The learned counsel submits that the dispute resolution mechanism is an efficacious mode of resolution of dispute between the parties and therefore, the writ petition may not be entertained at this stage. 10. In response, the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that he has filed representations before the respondents but no action has been taken to resolve the dispute. 11. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and considering the facts and circumstances of this case, this Court finds that the dispute has arisen out of agreement between the parties and Article 12 of the agreement provides for a mechanism for resolution of dispute through amicable resolution. 12. Although no counter-affidavit has been filed in the present case, but as per the case of the petitioner, the petitioner has invested huge amount for the project and is also said to have paid the outstanding dues. This Court is of the considered view that instead of entertaining this writ petition, the mode of amicable resolution, as has been provided by the agreement, would be the efficacious remedy for the parties so that the interest of the parties is safeguarded and the investment, which has already been made by the petitioner, is also taken care of. It is in the interest of both the parties that the project should take off at the earliest. 13. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of enabling the petitioner to avail the remedies under Article 12 of the agreement for 4 the purposes of amicable resolution of dispute between the parties for which the petitioner shall file representation along with the supporting documents and a copy of the writ record and a copy of this order before the respondent no. 2. 14. Upon filing of such representation, the respondent no. 2 is directed to do the needful at the earliest so that the appropriate decision is taken under the dispute resolution mechanism through amicable resolution within the stipulated time-frame as provided in the
Decision
agreement itself. 15. This writ petition is disposed of with the aforesaid observations. 16. Pending interlocutory application, if any, is closed. Pankaj (Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.)