HINDUSTAN CONTAINER TERMINAL Vs. TIRUVOTTIYUR MUNICIPALITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The brief facts of the case are as follows:-

(2.) The petitioner had participated in the above tender and offered the highest rate, viz., Rs.2,82,893/- per month. The petitioner's bid was confirmed by the respondent and as per the terms and conditions, the petitioner had paid three months rent as security deposit and also paid the fourth month's rent. Even though for all these years, it was considered as a lease, an agreement was executed as if it is a lease agreement. However, the respondent had chosen to describe in the terms and conditions as licence. Even at the time of execution of the lease deed, the petitioner questioned the respondent as to why the period of tender was reduced to one year from three years. The petitioner also informed the respondent highlighting the serious shortcomings with regard to the site viz., provision of compound wall, provision of gate, electricity supply and a possible sea erosion preventive at the backside. The respondent though promising to look into the grievance ultimately, did not do so. In view of this, the petitioner had to spend huge amounts for levelling the land to effect electricity connection and other infra-structural facilities for the safety of the containers.

(3.) As regards the nature of business, several multi-national co-operations have not come forward to enter into an agreement with the petitioner to park their containers in view of the fact that the petitioner would not give the guarantee that it would enter into a long term agreement which was one of the conditions insisted upon by prospective clients. At this stage, the petitioner felt that out of 8.57 acres, only 3.57 acres was capable of being used and only if the lease is granted for a longer duration i.e., atleast for three years, the entire venture of taking the lease for purposes of container terminal would have been productive and would have been beneficial to the interest of both the petitioner and the respondent. Accordingly, the petitioner made a representation on 21.03.2001 highlighting all the problems and representing that it is willing to surrender the rest of the vacant land viz., 5 acres to the respondent / Municipality. In the said representation, the petitioner specifically pointed out that in view of the short term of the lease as opposed to the grant in the previous years, which was three years, the prospective clients would not come forward and therefore the entire area could not be utilized. The respondent, by communication dated 27.03.2001 informed the petitioner that the request for surrender was not accepted. At this stage, it is relevant to point out that as per G.O.Ms.No.147, Municipal Administration dated 30.12.2000, it is indicated that all the municipal lands should be leased out only for a minimum period of three years and that the concerned municipal council can take a decision with regard to period of renewal for a further period of three years without resorting to public auction. The petitioner relying on the G.O. made a representation on 05.06.2001, requesting the respondent to extend the tenure of lease to three years and also informed that in the event of such an extension, the petitioner was willing to retain the entire 8.57 acres. This was followed by further representation by the petitioner to extend the period of three years or in the alternative to permit the surrender of remaining lands as the project was not viable unless a minimum period of three years is ensured.