R T PALANIVELU Vs. SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT TOURISM DEPARTMENT CUM CHAIRMAN TAMIL NADU FILM DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner was a licensee to run a children play equipments in the M.G.R. Film City in Taramani, Chennai which was to the extent of 8 acres in the said license for a period of five years. THE license was issued to him since, he was the successful bidder for a sum of Rs.1,60,000/- . THE license fee was fixed at Rs.1,60,000/- per month and the license commenced on 11.08.2000 with effect from 16.10.2000 and to expire on 15.10.2005. As the petitioner was successful bidder, he paid Rs.9,60,000/- towards six months deposit and also Rs.50,000/- towards E.M.D.

(2.) THE case of the petitioner is that:- He made developments in Film City spending more than Rs.3 crores for putting up the vehicle like Jumping frog, Rope Car, Twister and Giant Wheel and a lot of equipments for children play and equipments alone cost about Rs.2 Crores and other developments required to nearly Rs.1 crore. THE aforesaid investment was made on the assurance that the license was for a period of five years.

(3.) THE second respondent filed a counter affidavit stating that the license was for a period of five years with a provision of 10% increase in the license fee for every year and the petitioner sub-let the licensed area to a third party and denied the assurance regarding the compensation to be paid to the petitioner. It is also specifically stated that in paragraph 6 of the counter affidavit filed by the second respondent that he never requested the petitioner to give a letter to hand over the possession of the licensed area and it was only based on the petitioner's letter dated 15.06.2002, he was allowed to wind up his business. It is further stated that as per Clause 25 of the License Deed, three months notice was required to be given for termination. However, only 15 days notice was given and therefore the second respondent had to forfeit petitioner's deposit namely 2-1/2 months license fee of Rs.4,40,000/- and that was the reason why the said amount was adjusted for non compliance with Clause 25. Further, the undated letter written by the Chairman of second respondent Corporation Ltd., stated that the Board passed a resolution dated 31.12.2002 rejecting the petitioner's claim and it is also stated that the Corporation was closed by the Government with effect from 30.09.2002.