YOGIBEAR ENTERTAINMENT PVT. LTD. REP. BY ITS DIRECTOR SMT. Y.S. AGARWAL, SECUNDERABAD Vs. STATE OF TELANGANA REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TOURISM AND CULTURE DEPARTMENT HYDERABAD AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri P. Venugopal, learned senior counsel appearing for petitioner and learned Advocate General for the State of Telangana for respondents.

(2.) Petitioner entered into an agreement with the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation (for short GHMC) to build 'Mini Golf Course' operate and transfer. This agreement was entered on 26.6.2001 and was for a period of 15 years. The terms of agreement come to an end on 30.6.2016. Petitioner claims that his agreement ought to have been renewed and he should have been continued to run the Golf Course for a further period and not renewing the agreement and high-handedly superimposing locks in respect of the petitioner's business premises is illegal, arbitrary and without authority or jurisdiction. Seeking declaration that the same has been violative of Articles 14, 19, 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India, this writ petition is filed. Petitioner also sought for a consequential direction to forthwith remove the super-imposed locks in respect of the petitioner's business premises. To complete the narration, the business premises established by the petitioner in consequences to the agreement dated 26.6.2001 is called as M/s. Yogibear park.

(3.) Mr. P. Venugopal, contended that Yogibear Entertainment Centre is established by spending huge finances and there was a clear understanding between the petitioner and respondent GHMC to grant further extension on expiry of the lease period. By referring to clauses 2.2 and 13.2 of the agreement, he would submit that GHMC is vested with discretion to grant renewal and the fact that 12 months before the conclusion of the contract, no steps were initiated as required by clause 13.2 of the agreement, it is deemed that the renewal clause is exercised by GHMC and renewal is granted in favour of the petitioner. He would therefore submit that the impugned action of the respondents in preventing the petitioner from carrying on his business, is ex-facie illegal, amounts to arbitrary exercise of power.