Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(MAD) 15909
HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
MR. JUSTICE D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY, J
M/S.HOTEL KIAN – Appellant
Versus
THE CHAIRMAN – Respondent
W.P.No.15006 of 2025
Mr.S.Prabakar, Senior Counsel for Mr.Rajnish Pathiyil; Mr.A.R.L.Sundaresan Additional Solicitor General for Mr.Rajkumar Jhabakh; Ms.R.S.Pornima, Mr.Digvijay Raj
Judicial review under Article 226 is limited to arbitrary actions; disputes involving serious factual questions should be resolved through civil forums or arbitration.
Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Article 226 - Writ petition challenging termination of license for Wellness Centre at Chennai Airport - Petitioner contended that termination was based on incorrect allegations regarding managerial roles and relationships with a debarred entity - Court found that serious factual disputes existed, warranting resolution through civil forum or arbitration - Writ petition not entertained. (Paras 10, 11)
(B) Administrative Law - Judicial Review - The court may intervene in administrative actions only if arbitrary or disproportionate, otherwise parties should seek civil remedies. (Paras 10, 11)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner challenged the termination of their license to operate a Wellness Centre at Chennai Airport, claiming the termination was based on false allegations regarding connections to a debarred entity, SRPL. The petitioner argued that they provided a detailed explanation in response to a show cause notice, which was ignored. (Paras 3, 4, 5)
Findings of Court:
The court noted that the allegations against the petitioner were disputed and involved serious factual questions, suggesting that the matter should be resolved in a civil forum or through arbitration. (Paras 10, 11)
Issues: The main issues included whether the petitioner had a managerial role in SRPL and the appropriateness of the termination based on the alleged connections. (Paras 10, 11)
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that due to the serious factual disputes, the writ petition could not be entertained, and the petitioner should seek remedies through civil proceedings or arbitration. (Paras 10, 11)
Result: Writ petition disposed of.
ORDER
This writ petition is filed challenging the Order of termination dated 21.03.2025 vide Order No.CL-13041-43/2022- APD-CHENNAI/388 passed by the respondents and consequently seeking permission for the petitioner to carry out operations of the license to operate Wellness Centre/ Spa and Massage Chair facility in Domestic Terminals (T1 and T4), Security Hold Area at Chennai Airport.
2. Heard, Mr.S.Prabakar, the learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner.
3.The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner took this Court through the terms of the tender and submitted that the petitioner was the successful bidder. After the gestation period, the petitioner’s time to operate the Wellness Centre has commenced. Even the renovations are being made and when the petitioner is about to commence the operations, a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner calling for an explanation as to why the license should not be terminated. The reasons mentioned in the show cause notice are as follows:
“a. M/s.Hotel Kian is a sole proprietorship firm with the sole proprietor being Satvik Gothwal. Therefore, for legal purposes, M/s. Hotel Kian and Satvik Gothwal are one and the same.
b. Satvik Gothwal is a Key Managerial Personnel of M/s. SRPL.
c. M/s.SRPL has extended short term unsecured loans to Satvik Gothwal,
d. Sathvik Gothwal is a related party to M/s. SRPL.”
4. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that M/s.Hotel Kian is a proprietorship concern of Mr. Satvik Gothwal. The further allegation is that Mr.Satvik Gothwal is a key managerial personnel in M/s.SRPL (Saptagiri Restaurant Private Limited) is factually incorrect. The assertion that Saptagiri Restaurant Private Limited extended short term and unsecured loans to Mr.Satvik Gothwal is also factually false. He further submitted that Satvik Gothwal is a related party of SRPL is incorrect, as except for being the son of one of the directors, the petitioner, Satvik Gothwal, has got nothing to do with reference to SRPL. He does not own even a single share in SRPL and cannot be held liable for its actions. Neither the petitioner nor the proprietorship concern was part of any consortium or agreement with reference to SRPL. The debarment of SRPL has nothing to do with the petitioner.
5. The learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner further submitted that a detailed explanation was provided in response to the show cause notice. Even the explanation with reference to another connected concern, namely Mahesh Sunny Enterprises Private limited, was provided in detail. However, without considering any of these explanations, the impugned order terminating the license was passed. Therefore, the learned Senior counsel submitted that this Court should entertain the writ petition and pass an interim order to enable the petitioner to continue operations.
6. Per contra, the learned Additional Solicitor General, appearing on behalf of the respondents, would submit that one of the allegations made is that the petitioner is a key managerial personnel in SRPL. This is not just an allegation made by the respondents. When SRPL, namely M/s. Saptagiri Restaurant Private Limited, is a concern run by the father and other family members of the petitioner, the said concern itself had submitted a form before the respondents and it is in said form of particulars that the petitioner herein, namely Mr. Satvik Gothwal, is mentioned as the key managerial personnel.
7. The learned Additional Solicitor General of India would produce such a document dated 29.09.2022, which is signed by two of the Directors, namely Bikram Singh and Dhruv Gothwal. It is submitted that said Dhruv Gothwal is the brother of the petitioner and the said form mentions Satvik Gothwal also as one of the enterprises owned or significantly influenced by the key managerial personnel.
8. The learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, would seriously contest the said document. He would s
