IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No.2137 of 2008 Date of Decision: 13.2.2008 Manjeet Singh ...Petitioner Versus Punjab Tourism Development Corporation Limited ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.P.S. MANN Present: Mr. Sanjiv Bansal, Advocate, for the petitioner. M.M. KUMAR, J. The challenge in this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution is to the notice dated 28.1.2008 (P-13), whereby the licence period of Water Lily Restaurant & Fast Food Counter, Near Sutlej Head Works, Ropar, has been terminated. The petitioner has been asked to hand over vacant physical possession of the premises to the respondent Punjab Tourism Development Corporation Limited (for brevity, ‘the Corporation’). The case of the petitioner is that the Corporation had taken land measuring 0.67 acres from the Irrigation Department, C.W.P. No. 2137 of 2008 Punjab, for a period of 33 years. It raised certain construction of Fast Food Counter. In June, 1998, the Corporation invited sealed tenders for issuance of a licence to run a Fast Food Counter and in that regard issued a Public Notice. The petitioner was awarded the licence and a licence agreement for a period of five years was executed on 30.7.1998. The licence was extended on 19.1.2004 till August 2004 @ 5% annual increase. Similar extension was given on 20.9.2005 for a period of five years but there was a specific stipulation made in the lease agreement that the extension would be for a period of five years or till the decision with regard to disinvestment is taken. The Cabinet Sub-Committee on disinvestment decided to get the premises transferred to the Department of Tourism from the Corporation and then to lease out the same. The Board of Directors of the Corporation, vide decision dated 14.12.2007, authorised the Managing Director of the Corporation to cancel the licence agreement so as to enable the Corporation to transfer the property back to the Government. Accordingly, the impugned notice dated 28.1.2008 (P- 13) has been issued. We have heard learned counsel and perused various documents/averments made in the petition. We find that the notice of termination is consistent with the terms and conditions of the lease deed to which the petitioner had agreed on 20.9.2005. It is appropriate to mention that the petitioner had agreed for either five years term or termination at the stage of disinvestment. The second eventuality having arisen and the Managing Director having been authorised, is absolutely consistent with law and no exception is 2 C.W.P. No. 2137 of 2008 provided to interfere in the impugned notice. Even otherwise, in such like matters, interference of the Court is restricted only on account of express violation of statutory provisions or the Constitution, as has been held by Hon’ble the Supreme Court in the case of Balco Employees Union Registered v. Union of India, (2002) 2 SCC 333. There is, thus, no merit in the petition and the same is accordingly dismissed. (M.M. KUMAR) JUDGE (T.P.S. MANN) February 13, 2008 JUDGE Pkapoor 3