Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH
Manish Choudhury, J.
Dr. Vihuto Assumi - Peitioner
Versus
The State of Nagaland Represented by the Commissioner & Secretary, Department of Tourism and ors. – Respondents
Writ Petition [Civil] 234/2023, Writ Petition [Civil] 266/2023
Decided On : 12-12-2024
(A) Constitution of India - Article 226 - Writ petitions filed against actions of Tourism Department, Government of Nagaland regarding lease agreements - Petitioner entered into a Lease Deed Agreement on 06.09.2022 for operating a Restaurant at Tourist Lodge, Dimapur for 5 years - Subsequent Lease Agreement executed on 13.09.2023 with another party raised apprehensions of eviction - Court held that the Agreement dated 06.09.2022 is a non-statutory contract and determinable in nature, thus not enforceable under Article 226 - Petitioner's claims for specific performance and damages were deemed inappropriate for writ jurisdiction. (Paras 10, 11, 18, 20)
(B) Contract Law - Nature of Agreements - Distinction between statutory and non-statutory contracts - Court emphasized that agreements with statutory bodies can still be non-statutory and governed by ordinary contract principles - The petitioner's claims were to be resolved through civil court or arbitration, not writ jurisdiction. (Paras 16, 17)
JUDGMENT :
Manish Choudhury, J.
Both the writ petitions have been preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by the petitioner being aggrieved by the impugned actions on the part of the respondent authorities in the Tourism Department, Government of Nagaland.
2. It is the case of the petitioner that he is an indigenous inhabitant of Zunheboto District in the State of Nagaland. Pursuant to an application submitted by him and after having entered into a discussion with the authorities in the Directorate of Tourism / Tourism Department, Government of Nagaland, the petitioner entered into an agreement, styled as ‘Lease Deed Agreement’, on 06.09.2022, with the petitioner on one side and the Directorate of Tourism / Department of Tourism, Government of Nagaland, represented by the Director of Tourism, Nagaland on the other side. It is stated that the respondent Tourism Department is the sole legal owner of a landed property, that is, Tourist Lodge at Dimapur. By the Agreement dated 06.09.2022, an asset of the Tourism Department, ‘Restaurant [Catering Service]’ located at the Tourist Lodge, Dimapur was given on ‘lease’ to the petitioner for a period of 5 [five] years as per the terms and conditions agreed upon and delineated in the Agreement dated 06.09.2022. As per the said Agreement, the petitioner as the lessee / licencee was to furnish security deposit amounting to Rs. 2.50 lakhs in the form of a fixed special term deposit [STDR] drawn in favour of the Director, Department of Tourism. Subsequent to the execution of the agreement, the Department of Tourism, Government of Nagaland granted a permit to the petitioner on 08.09.2022, pursuant to Government approval, on 02.09.2022. By the permit, the petitioner was permitted to run his business at the Restaurant [Catering Services] area located at the Tourist Lodge, Dimapur for a period of 5 [five] years w.e.f. 01.10.2022 to 31.10.2027. As per the said permit, the Restaurant [Catering Services] was to be operated in a total area of 4031.92 sq. ft. at a monthly rent of Rs. 9.50 sq. ft. In the said permit dated 08.09.2022, it was indicated that the petitioner was to pay Rs. 38,303/-as a monthly rent for permitting him to operate the Restaurant [Catering Services], which was calculated as per the Standard of Rates [SoR] – 2016 of the Public Works Department [Housing]. On being handed over the area of the Restaurant [Catering Services] to the petitioner, the petitioner started running the business of catering services therefrom.
3. When the petitioner was running the Restaurant [Catering Services] from the area measuring 4031.92 sq. ft. located at Tourist Lodge, Dimapur since after the execution of the Agreement dated 06.09.2022, the Directorate of Tourism, Nagaland was found to have written a letter to the respondent no. 4 vide Office Letter no. TOUR/MISC/48/2022-23/203 on 06.10.2023 whereby the respondent no. 4 was asked to take over the land and facility of the Tourist Lodge, Dimapur by 21.10.2023 in order to facilitate a Lease Agreement signed on 13.09.2023 for construction of a 4/5 Star or Higher Category Hotel with Entertainment and Retail Facilities at the landed property of Tourist Lodge, Dimapur under Public Private Partnership [PPP] model on Design, Build, Maintain, Operate, Manage and Transfer basis. Having learnt about execution of the Lease Agreement on 13.09.2023 for construction of a 4/5 Star or Higher Category Hotel at the same place wherefrom the petitioner was operating the Restaurant [Catering Services] and apprehending that because of execution of the Lease Agreement dated 13.09.2023 there was possibility of the petitioner being removed from the said place, the petitioner submitted a Representation before the Director of Tourism, Government of Nagaland on 18.09.2023 stating his apprehension. The petitioner had the apprehension that despite execution of an agreement with him for a period of 5 [five] years, the execution of another Agreement on 13.09.2023 with th
The court ruled that the agreement was a non-statutory, determinable contract, not enforceable under Article 226, and any claims should be pursued in civil court.
The petitioner, as a commission vendor, has no legal right to assert that he can continue to act as a commission agent from the stall located at Platform no. 1 and to assail the decision of the respo....
Point of law: Existence of an arbitration clause cannot be a ground for non maintainability of a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. But it is the discretion of the High Cou....
The court ruled that a Commission Vendor has no inherent right to operate from a specific stall, emphasizing the principal-agent relationship and the public interest in maximizing revenue.
Public interest and fairness must govern the tendering process, prohibiting judicial intervention in absence of mala fides or arbitrariness.
The court clarified that rights under a mining lease are contractual and not necessarily protected under constitutional articles; any disputes must be addressed in civil proceedings.
As the contract between the petitioner and the respondent Corporation, an instrumentality of the State, is under the realm of a private law and there is no element of public law, the only course for ....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
