THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU W.A.Nos. 952; 953; 1133 and 1193 of 2008 and W.P.Nos. 10665 & 11575 of 2008 Dated 07–10-2010 W.A.No. 952 of 2008 Between: East Coast Boat Builders & Engineering Limited, Rep., its Director, A.P. Srivastava, Mumbai. …Appellant Vs. The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep., by its Secretary, Infrastructure & Investments Department (Ports), Secretariat, Hyderabad and others. …Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM And THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU W.A.Nos. 952, 953, 1133 and 1193 of 2008 and W.P.Nos. 10665 and 11575 of 2008 Oral Common Order: (Per: GR, J) The principal litigants in these raft of proceedings are the East Coast Boat Builders & Engineering Limited, represented by its Director, A.P. Srivastava (for short ‘the East Coast); the East West Marine Engineering Works rep., by its Managing Partner, M.N. Subramanyam (for short ‘East West’); the State of Andhra Pradesh represented by its Secretary, Infrastructure & Investments Department (Ports), Hyderabad; The Director of Ports, Kakinada Port, Kakinada and the Port Officer, Kakinada Port, Kakinada. Facts: The State in G.O.Ms.No.1218 PWD dated 20-09- 1972 granted lease/license in an extent of Ac.09-60 cents in favour of East Coast for a period of thirty three (33) years enuring up to 01-08-2006. There is admittedly no clause for renewal of the lease/license either in G.O.Ms.No. 1218 dated 20-09-1972 or under any other agreement between the parties (the State and the East Coast). On 23-11-1987 the State issued another order in G.O.Ms.No. 1187 allotting another extent of Ac.06-59 cents in favour of East Coast for a period of thirty (30) years enuring up to 01-08-2018. It is the admitted factual scenario that East Coast defaulted in the payment of rent to the Kakinada Port, East Coast contends that unfavourable market conditions, the recessionary business environment and fluctuations in international currency exchange rates, contributed to its economic distress which occasioned the East Coast in defaulting on the payment of rents to the Kakinada Port. The Port authorities issued several notices to East Coast demanding payment of the arrears of rent. On 20-05- 1997 a notice was issued by the Kakinada Port to East Coast to vacate the premises; and on 02-04-1999 another notice calling upon the East Coast to pay the lease rental or vacate premises, duly intimating that the defaulting conduct constitutes a violation of the conditions of license. On 29-12-2007 another notice was issued to the East Coast to pay the arrears of lease rentals amounting to Rs.1,47,12,292-00. On 01-08-2006 the lease granted in favour of East Coast in an extent of Ac.09-60 cents for a period of thirty three years, vide G.O.Ms.No. 1218 dated 20-09-1972 expired. In October, 2007 East West applied to the State for allotment of Port land on lease/license for its own operations. In response the State Government in G.O.Ms.No.8 dated 03-03-2008 allotted land of an extent of Ac.20-00 to East West. On 26-04-2008 the lease/license granted to the East Coast vide G.O.Ms.No. 1187 dated 23-11-1987 was terminated on the ground of persistent default by East Coast in payment of rents to the Kakinada Port. On 03-05-2008, a lease application dated 01-05-2008 submitted by East Coast for renewal of the lease which expired on 01-08-2006 was rejected by the State. On 05-05-2008 out of the sanction extent of Ac.20- 00, the State allotted Ac.16-19 cents to East West vide G.O.Ms.No. 8, I & I (Ports) Department dated 03-03-2008 and remaining extent of Ac.3-81 was yet to be identified. On 06-05-2008 East West paid an amount of Rs.89,27,273-00 to the Kakinada Port towards the arrears of rent due to the Port from East Coast (as part of the agreement between East West and the State Government). The particulars regarding the liability of East West to clear the arrears of East Coast to the State Government and whether East West is entitled to any refund, if East Coast were to repay the arrears of lease amounts to the Port Trust, is not relevant in the context of these writ petitions. On 06-05-2008 itself East West entered into a lease agreement with Kakinada Port. In May, 2008 East Coast filed W.P.No.10665 of 2008 assailing the order dated 26-04-2008 whereby the lease of the extent of Ac.06-59 cents (granted in G.O.Ms.No.1187) was terminated on the ground of default in payment of lease amounts. In May, 2008 itself, East Coast filed another writ petition being W.P.No.11575 of 2008 for a declaration that the action of the Kakinada Port in not considering its application for renewal of the lease which expired on 01- 08-2006, is arbitrary and seeking in substance a direction to the Kakinada Port to renew this lease. An interim order was granted on 29-05-2008 in W.P.No. 11575 of 2008 directing to maintain status quo, subject to East Coast depositing Rs.30,00,000-00 (Rupees thirty lakhs only) within a week from the date of order. East Coast deposited the amount. East West filed an application for impleading itself in both the writ petitions – W.P.Nos. 10665 and 11575 of 2008 and was impleaded as a non-official respondent in these writ petitions. East Coast sought and obtained amendment of the relief in W.P.No. 11575 of 2008, to additionally challenge the order of the State Government rejecting its application for renewal of the lease which had expired on 01-08-2006. By a common order dated 22-08-2008, passed in the interlocutory applications in W.P.Nos. 10665 and 11575 of 2008, this Court modified the interim order dated 07-05-2008 granted in W.P.No. 10665 of 2008 directing the East Coast to pay half of the amounts due towards interest on the delayed payment of arrears of rent i.e., Rs.29,50,000-00 to the Kakinada Port within four weeks from the date of the order (dated 22-08-2008); vacated the interim order of status quo granted in W.P.No. 11575 of 2008 (pertaining to the lease of Ac.09-60 cents granted vide G.O.Ms.No.1218 dated 20-09-1972 and which lease expired on 01-08-2006) and super adding a default clause that in the event East Coast fails to comply with the direction to deposit of Rs.29,50,000-00 within the period stipulated, the interim order (interdicting the termination of its lease in respect of the extent of Ac.06-59 cents granted vide G.O.Ms.No.1187 dated 23-11-1987) would stand vacated. W.A.Nos. 953 and 1193 of 2008 are filed by East Coast and the State Government respectively aggrieved by the order dated 22-08-2008 referred to above. W.A.No. 1133 of 2008 by East West is also against the order dated 22-08-2008, aggrieved by that portion of the order whereby the possession of the East Coast in respect of the extent of Ac.06-59 cents is continued on condition of East Coast’s liability to pay an amount of Rs.29,50,000-00. W.A.No.952 of 2008 is also by East Coast aggrieved by the order dated 22-08-2008 whereby its challenge to the refusal of the State to renew its lease, was rejected. It requires to be noticed that East West filed O.S.No.47 of 2008 on the file of the learned IV-Additional District Judge, Rajamundry seeking a permanent injunction against East Coast to restrain East Coast from interfering with its possession and enjoyment of the extent of Ac.16-19 cents leased out to it under the orders of the State Government in G.O.Ms.No. 8 dated 03-03-2008. East West obtained an interim injunction and thereagainst East Coast preferred C.M.A.No. 1281 of 2008 to this Court which is pending. No order interdicting the orders of interim injunction granted by the trial Court has been passed by this Court in this miscellaneous appeal (C.M.A.No. 1281 of 2008). East Coast instituted A.O.P.No.527 of 2008 under the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1966 and in I.A.No. 4084 of 2008 therein sought grant of interim measures restraining the State Government and Kakinada Port from interfering with its rights in respect of extents of Ac.09-60 cents and Ac.06-59 cents licensed/leased to it under G.O.Ms.No. 1218 and G.O.Ms.No. 1187 respectively. By an order dated 02-05- 2009, the learned III-Additional District Judge, Kakinada declined to grant interim relief. Thereagainst East Coast preferred C.M.A.No.525 of 2009. By an order dated 22- 05-2009 this Court granted interim injunction in favour of East Coast in C.M.A.M.P.No.921 of 2009 in C.M.A.No. 525 of 2009, restraining the State, the Director of Ports, Kakinada and the Port Officer, Kakinda (respondents in the C.M.A.) from interfering with the possession and enjoyment of East Coast in respect of the lease hold property and of moveable and immoveable properties constituting part and parcel of the petition schedule in A.O.P.No. 527 of 2008. As a consequence of this order East Coast claims entitlement to the continued use and occupation of the entire extent of land given on lease/license to it under G.O.Ms.Nos. 1218 dated 20-09- 1972 and 1187 dated 23-11-1987, notwithstanding that the lease/license in respect of Ac.09-60 cents covered by G.O.Ms.No. 1218 had expired on 01-08-2006 and the lease/license in respect of Ac.06-59 cents covered by G.O.Ms.No. 1187 though enuring up to 01-08-2018, had been terminated by the orders dated 26-04-2008. Sri Adinarayana Rao, learned senior counsel for East Coast would submit that in view of East Coast having initiated a process under the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1966 by filing A.O.P.No.527 of 2008 in the court of the learned III-Additional District Judge, Kakinda, none of the issues presented for consideration in W.P.Nos. 10665 and 11575 of 2008 need be pursued further in this Court. It however requires to be noticed that A.O.P.No. 527 of 2008 was instituted after W.P.Nos. 10665 and 11575 of 2008 were filed in this Court and after interim orders were passed therein. Normally we would have been inclined to non-suit the petitioner on the ground of trying to over reach the due process of law and abusing the process of law by filing cases involving substantively overlapping issues of fact and law and having potential of conflicting judgments by different fora. This conduct of the writ petitioner amounting to a litigative frenzy, is not conducive of a just disposition of the issues in dispute. However Sri Adinarayana Rao, learned counsel would urge that having regard to the magnitude of the economic trauma East Coast has been subjected to, it did though in indiscretion, filed proceedings before this Court and before the Civil Court under the arbitral process. In the circumstances, we are inclined to take a lenient view of the conduct of East Coast and do not extend to the writ petitioner, just deserts of its unwarranted conduct. In view of East Coast instituting a substantive arbitral process in A.O.P.No. 527 of 2008 before the learned III-Additional District Judge, Kakinada; and in view of the statement fairly made by Sri Adinarayana Rao, the learned counsel for the East Coast that in view of the proceedings instituted under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, the proceedings in W.P.Nos. 10665 and 11575 of 2008 no longer required to be pursued in this Court, we dispose of W.P.Nos. 10665 and 11575 of 2008 and the several writ appeals – W.A.Nos. 952, 953, 1133 and 1193 of 2008 as under: W.P.Nos. 10665 and 11575 of 2008 stand dismissed as ‘withdrawn’. Consequently, the order dated 22-08-2008 passed in the several applications in the above two writ petitions stand dissolved; and as a consequence W.A.Nos. 952, 953, 1133 and 1193 of 2008 are dismissed as infructuous. There shall however be no order as to costs. ____________________ GODA RAGHURAM, J ___________________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU, J Dated: 07-10-2010 Pvks