TANMAYA PARIJA Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking for issuance of a writ of certiorari to quash the Tender Notice dated 5.7.2011 under Annexure-18 and any other orders in the circumstance of the case urging various facts and legal contentions.

(2.) The brief facts are stated for the purpose of appreciating the rival legal contention urged on behalf of the parties. Opposite party No. 2, the Orissa State Road Transport Corporation (hereinafter called in short 'the OSRTC') is the owner of a piece of land situated at Station Road, Balasore Town, whereupon the erstwhile office building and garage stood. In pursuance of the decision of the Corporation to lease out the said property on monthly lease basis, tenders were invited and published in the Oriya daily 'The Samaj' dated 21.3.2012. In the said tender proceedings, the petitioner being an young entrepreneur participated and his bid being the highest, he was called upon for negotiation by the OSRTC and the bid was settled in favour of the petitioner vide letter No. 11287 dated 29.4.2002 issued by opposite party No. 3 and the said property was allotted to the petitioner on the terms and conditions contained therein. After due compliance of all requirements as stipulated in the said allotment letter by the petitioner, an agreement was executed on 21.8.2002 by the petitioner in favour of the Corporation represented by opposite party No. 3. It was agreed by the Corporation to renew the lease beyond the stipulated period of 36 months provided the petitioner being desirous of such renewal and he applies for the same three months before the expiry of the tenure of the lease and agrees to pay an enhanced rent at the rate of 20% of the existing rent. The Estate Officer of the OSRTC vide his letter dated 4.9.2002 directed the Asst. Transport Manager (Admn.) to hand over the possession of the said premises to the petitioner and in pursuance thereof the vacant physical possession of the said premises was handed over to the petitioner on 5.9.2002 duly signed by the Estate Officer for the said purpose. It is the further case of the petitioner that subsequent to handing over the possession of the said premises to the petitioner after estimating the cost of renovation/repair of the building, the OSRTC decided to sanction up to Rs. 3,14,150/- towards the repair expenditure which is to be first spent by the petitioner from his own source and thereafter the same will be adjusted by way of 50 percent of the monthly rent to be paid by the petitioner towards the premises which is evident from the sanction order vide order No. 5610 dated 17.3.2003 issued by the Accounts Officer of the Corporation. The sanction order is also produced. It is further stated that to make the premises fully fit for lodging and restaurant purpose, relying upon the promise of the OSRTC to continue such lease, invoking the renewal clause, the petitioner carried out necessary construction work which are permanent in nature incurring a huge expenses of about Rs. 25 lakhs to make the buildings business worthy as may be evident from the certificate issued by the Civil Engineer who undertook and supervised the aforesaid construction. When the matter stood thus, and the premises was ready for carrying out the aforesaid business by the petitioner, in the first week of March, 2004, to his utmost shock the petitioner received notice No. 7129 dated 19.3.2004 issued by opposite party No. 3 through registered post on 26.3.2004 intimating him that the agreement dated 21.8.2002 has been cancelled by the OSRTC invoking Clause-23 stating that the Corporation has intended to sell the said property. Therefore, the petitioner was called upon to vacate the premises within fifteen days. The said cancellation order was challenged by the petitioner by filing W.P.(C) No. 3959 of 2004. This Court has passed the following interim order :-

(3.) The petitioner was paying rent till date with 20% enhancement after expiry of three yeas period as agreed upon from time to time. While the matter stood thus, the petitioner submitted a proposal with tire OSRTC to accord permission for the development of the property on payment of enhanced rent. Vide letter dated 12.11.2008, the Opposite party No. 3 directed the petitioner to furnish plan of the development of the space at Balasore. The petitioner submitted the detailed plan on 22.11.2008 and the same is still pending consideration. Vide letter dated 10.12.2010 the opposite party No. 3 directed the petitioner to deposit arrears of rent which he has defaulted to pay because of some unavoidable reasons. In the same letter, opposite party No. 3 instructed the petitioner to withdraw the writ petition by filing memo, copy of the withdrawal order dated 10.12.2010 is also produced. Proceedings were initiated against the petitioner under the Orissa Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1972 on the ground that petitioner is in unauthorized occupation of the premises since 21.8.2009 which was challenged in the writ petition. The petitioner made himself personally present in the office of opposite party No. 3 on 4.7.2011 and prayed for time to file written statement as his advocate could not appear due to his personal problems. The petitioner was not allowed to meet the opposite party No. 3 till 8 P.M. in the night for which he had to send a copy of the application through G.P.O., Bhubaneswar in the evening. The said notice was challenged by the petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 16267 of 2011, but the same was withdrawn on 6.7.2011 for want of disclosure of certain information. Thereafter, another writ petition being W.P.(C) No. 18380 of 2011 was filed challenging the initiation of proceeding vide Annexure-16 notice. Finally the order of eviction was passed on 7.7.2011. That was the subject matter of W.P.(C) No. 18380 of 2011 which was dismissed by this Court on 12.7.2011. After the issuance of final order under Section 5(1) of OPP Act, the opposite party took steps for inviting open tenders. The open tender was issued on 5.7.2011 which was published in the daily newspaper 'The Dharitri' on 10.7.2011. The petitioner has not submitted his tender bid. Further it is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the aforesaid notice dated 5.7.2011 issued by opposite party No. 3 initiating tender process is absolutely illegal, arbitrary, discriminatory and unreasonable. The opposite party No. 3 has played hide and seek with the highest judiciary of the State by suppressing the fact of tender process stating that the final order under Section 5 of the Act has been passed. Such conduct of the opposite party No. 3 has to be seriously viewed by this Court. Therefore, he has prayed that if the impugned notice is allowed to sustain, the petitioner will be put to gravest prejudice in addition to irreparable loss.