JAYAPRAKASH P.PRABHU Vs. GREATER COCHIN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These writ petitions are filed seeking directions to the respondents to refund the security deposit amount collected by them in respect of a tender for running a cafeteria in the premises which was sought to be leased out to the petitioner.

(2.) The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the tender had been quoted by the respondents for the conduct of the cafeteria. The petitioners had participated in the tender and being the successful tenderers, they had submitted security deposit in terms of the tender deeds. Ext.P1 lease deed was also executed between the parties. However, the D&O licence was not issued by the Corporation for the conduct of the cafeteria. On enquiries, it was found that there was no permission for construction of the building in question and consequently, the building was not numbered. It is submitted that, thereafter, the Standing Committee of the Corporation had rejected the request made by the GCDA for D&O licence for the conduct of the cafeteria in question and that the cafeteria consequently could not be run even for a single day.

(3.) It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the construction made for the cafeteria had been demolished. The petitioners issued a notice to the respondents seeking repayment of the security deposit, it was not met by the respondents which was lead to the filing of these writ petitions.