UTSAV FLAVOURS Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been preferred against the order dated 9.9.2008 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) No. 5886 of 2007, who has been pleased to dismiss the writ petition holding therein that the termination of the lease deed in favour of the petitions-appellant herein to operate food plaza at Tatanagar Railway Station was justified, legal and sustainable.

(2.) Undisputed position in the matter is that the petitioner-appellant herein had entered into an agreement with the respondent No. 2 Indian Railway Catering and Tourism Corporation which had issued a licence in favour of the appellant to operate food plaza at Tatanagar Railway Station. Thus the petitioner/appellant is a licensee by virtue of a written agreement which had been executed between the petitioner-appellant and the respondent No. 2 and one of the specific conditions in the agreement was incorporated as Clause 20 which pertains to maintenance of hygiene and quality control of the food. Under Clause 21.1 it was specifically laid down that the licensee will provide sale of products of reputed brands only of the storage, handling of raw materials and finished products will have to be in extreme hygienic conditions. Besides this, another clause in the agreement was also incorporated as Clause 19 laying down therein that in the event of any dispute and difference arising under the conditions of licence or in connection with the licence except as to any matters, which was specifically provided by the specific condition, will be resolved by arbitration as per provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

(3.) Admittedly, a dispute arose between the appellant-licensee of food plaza and the respondent No. 2 (Indian Railway Catering and Tourism Corporation) since the respondent No. 2-Corporation alleged that the petitioner/appellant was not selling the food articles through the food plaza as per the terms and conditions of the agreement as it was not maintaining hygienic conditions in the food plaza. For this purpose, show-cause notices were issued to the petitioner-appellant on several occasions indicating that in spite of the notices which were issued to the respondents on 10.9.2003, 14.10.2003, 24.1.2004, 25.2.2006, 12.4.2007, 29.4.2007 and 11.5.2007 and also in spite of several opportunities granted to the petitioner-appellant to rectify the lapses on the part of the licensee, the petitioner-appellant failed to improve the conditions. Consequently, in terms of the clause in the agreement, the licence granted in favour of the petitioner-appellant was cancelled which was challenged by the petitioner-appellant by filing a writ petition.