COMMANDO CATERERS PRIVATE LIMITED Vs. CHANDIGARH ADMINISTRATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner-company introduced into India, of what it claims as the first in Asia, a concept of "dinner in the sky". That allows for hoisting a hanging restaurant at a height of 165 feet to cater to a dinning experience for 22 guests seated around a table, apart from 6 crew members consisting of 2 chefs, 2 air hostesses, one camera man and the security staff. The concept is said to be invented and promoted by a Belgium Company and the petitioner company claimed to be a partnership franchise for India to promote it for entertainment of public at any sports ground or cultural site or tourist or picnic site in the city. It is claimed by the petitioner company that this concept is being operated in more than 30 countries throughout the world and the petitioner company had mooted the idea to the Chandigarh Administration by addressing a letter to the Administrator with copy supplied to the Secretary, Tourism Department, Chandigarh. The petitioner is said to have pursued his representation with demonstration of the concept at meeting with the Deputy Commissioner and the Director Tourism on 22.07.2009. The Tourism Department is also believed to have been informed subsequently on 24.07.2009. This is represented to have been discussed again on 3.8.2009 amongst the Deputy Commissioner, U.T., Director Tourism and an official belonging to the Engineering Department in the presence of the Managing Director of the petitioner company. Since setting up this event constituted serious safety issues, a three member committee is reported to have been constituted by the 1st respondent, comprising of the Deputy Commissioner, Director Tourism and an officer of the Engineering Department to examine the modalities regarding launching of the - Sky Events' concept. The petitioner files in proof of the contention, the file notings on his letter seeking for permission and for an opportunity to give a presentation of the viability of the project. The notings revealed that different aspects regarding safety, location of the land and promotion of tourism had been discussed and the Director Tourism had placed it before the Administrator, U.T. for information on 07.08.2009. On 08.09.2009, there was an endorsement that the Administrator, U.T. approved of the launching of the concept and a letter of intent in favour of the petitioner was suggested to be drafted and put up for approval.

(2.) On 14.09.2009, the Deputy Commissioner, U.T. informed the petitioner that the proposal regarding the launching of the Sky Event had been approved by the Chandigarh Administration subject to certain terms and conditions. Since this communication forms the basis of the petitioner's contention, it is appropriate to reproduce the same:

(3.) All the leading newspapers carried reports of the imminent launch of the concept in the tri-city of Chandigarh, Mohali and Panchkula. Things however, took a different turn on 14.09.2009 when the Managing Director of the petitioner company met with the 4th respondent, who was the Finance Secretary, Chandigarh Administration for duly apprising him of the developments that had taken place and when he expressed his displeasure that the scheme was getting approved by the Tourism Department without reference to him and more particularly with the Chandigarh Industrial and Tourism Corporation (CITCO). On 19.09.2009, the suggestion appears to have emanated from the Administrator U.T. himself for organizing a National Crafts Mela in Chandigarh and the Home Secretary, Tourism had suggested that the Sky Events Concept could be launched on the said occasion. The 4th respondent had other ideas and proceeded to issue letter on 22.09.2009 to the Deputy Commissioner, U.T., that the event could not be conducted in the places originally approved by the Administration namely at Sukhna Lake, Leisure Valley, Lake Club, Cricket Stadium and Hockey Stadium but in any place where it was to be approved, the permission has to be restricted a period of not more than three days consecutively. The letter, according to the petitioner, contained unreasonable restrictions and the Administration, which had originally warmed to the idea, suddenly grew lukewarm and the Tourism Department did not evince any interest in the Memorandum of the Understanding, which was originally mooted in the letter referred to above. The petitioner has given several representations for executing the Memorandum of Understanding but it has not come through. The only saving grace was that the petitioner had been permitted to stage the event at the Crafts Mela to add the prestige to the grand occasion at Kala Gram when the Deputy Commissioner, U.T. had addressed the communication on 03.10.2009. The petitioner had expressed his consent on 10.10.2009. The petitioner claims that the 4th respondent had still raised obstruction to the petitioner at every stage. As an appellate authority, the Deputy Commissioner again served a memo on 22.10.2009 calling upon the petitioner to obtain safety certificate from the Engineering Department before the commencement of the Mela. The event went on as planned successfully but the 4th respondent was still having grudge against the petitioner and made an ugly scene at the Mela when he wanted to break the cordon when the Governor had actually ascended to the restaurant. When the 4th respondent was fended off by the security personnel of the Governor, he grew infuriated and took that into his skin to cause obstruction in all future dealings.