(1.) BY means of this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the Petitioner has sought the following relief -
(2.) THE brief facts of the case according to the Petitioner are that the Petitioner was allotted Canteen No. 11 from 1st January 2008 to 31st December, 2009 on rent and a sum of Rs. 1,51,000/ - was paid by the Petitioner to the Respondents. Further the Petitioner received an offer dated 17th December, 2009 by which the Respondents asked the Petitioner that if he so desires, the aforesaid Canteen would be renewed for another two years, from 1.1.2010 to 31.12.2011 on 10% enhanced rent of previous allotment. The Petitioner was further directed to deposit 50% advance rent on enhanced basis and the terms and conditions of the previous agreement would remain unchanged. The Petitioner was also required to bring a stamp paper of Rs. 100/ - and the Petitioner was directed to complete all the formalities on or before 19th December, 2009 before 5.00 P.M. along with consent letter. The Petitioner was agreeable to the above terms and conditions, therefore he deposited a sum of Rs. 1,56,811 -00 vide cheque No. 0091185 dated 18th December 2009 payable at Kurmanchal Nagar Sahkari Bank Ltd, Haldwani. The Petitioner further alleged that he gave his consent pursuant to letter dated 17th December, 2009 on 18th December 2009. The case of the Petitioner is that he has sent the consent letter as well as the cheque through courier receipt No. 22184 dated 18th December, 2009. Since the Respondents accepted the cheque of the Petitioner, the Petitioner expected that his canteen has been renewed upto 31st December, 2011 and he started the business on the canteen and still he is running his business. The Respondent invited tender for six canteens vide advertisement dated 21st December, 2009 and canteen No. 11 was not included in the said advertisement. It was surprising that on 24th December, 2009 the Petitioner was served the impugned order by which it was informed that the Canteen No. 11 has not been allotted to the Petitioner and as such the consent letter of the Petitioner has been rejected.
(3.) THE Respondents filed counter affidavit alleging therein that according to the Petitioner he submitted the consent letter in the office of Mandi Samity by hand on 19 -12 -2009 as such there was no justification for sending cheque by courier on 18 -12 -2009 and this fact shows that actually the Petitioner did not submit the cheque on or before the date fixed i.e. 19 -12 -2009 and in collusion with courier agency forged the document. It is further assertion of the Respondents that although the Petitioner has given his consent letter in the office of Mandi Samity on 19 -12 -2009 but the cheque was received by courier only after the offer had been rejected. The Respondents never accepted the cheque received from the Petitioner. The terms of canteen of the Petitioner allotted to him was to expire on 31.12.2009 and the license of the Petitioner was never renewed for further two years. As regards the advertisement for bid of six canteens dated 21 -12 -2009, the Respondents alleged that due to inadvertence mistake tenders were invited only for six canteens, but as soon as the mistake came to notice, a corrigendum dated 24.12.2009 was issued inviting tenders for all the fifteen canteens. As the Petitioner did not fulfil the terms and conditions of the offer, therefore, the consent letter of the Petitioner has rightly been rejected, vide impugned order.