Advocates:
['Siddharth Shukla', '', 'PANKAJ SINGH', 'Sabyasachi Bhaduri', 'Animesh Tiwari', '', 'AMAN PANDEY', 'VIVEK SHARMA', 'AMAN SAXENA', 'ROHISHEK VERMA', 'ASMITA SINGHAI', 'AKASH SHRIVASTAVA', 'ANUMEH SHRIVASTAVA', 'SUNIL OTWANIYogendra Pandey']

1

AFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

WPC No. 1844 of 2020

M/S MMP Water Sports Pvt Ltd, through Mr. B. Vijay Kumar authorized

Representative, aged-40 years, R/o Buddha Talab Main Gate, Mahamay

WArd, Swami Vivekanand Sarovar, Chhattisgarh.

---- Petitioner

Versus

1. Chhattisgarh Tourism Board, through Managing Directore, 2^nd Floor,

Udyog Bhawarn, Ring Road No.1, Telibandha, Raipur – 492006, C.G.

2. Raipur Municipal Corporation, through Commissioner Nagar Nigam Head

Office, Near Mahila Police Thana, Gandhi Udyog, Raipur, C.G.

3. Raipur Smart City Limited through Managing Director Ground Floor

Chhatrapati Shivajee Maharaj Outdoor Stadium Campus, In front of Buddha

Talab, Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

---- Respondents

along with

WPC No. 2479 of 2020

M/S MMP Water Sports Pvt Ltd, through Mr. B. Vijay Kumar authorized

Representative, aged-40 years, R/o Buddha Talab Main Gate, Mahamaya

Ward, Swami Vivekanand Sarovar, Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

---- Petitioner

Versus

2

1. Chhattisgarh Tourism Board, through Managing Directore, 2^nd Floor,

Udyog Bhawarn, Ring Road No.1, Telibandha, Raipur – 492006, C.G.

2. Raipur Municipal Corporation, through Commissioner Nagar Nigam Head

Office, near Mahila Police Thana, Gandhi Udyog, Raipur, C.G.

3. Raipur Smart City Limited through Managing Director Ground Floor

Chhatrapati Shivajee Maharaj Outdoor Stadium Campus, In front of Buddha

Talab, Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

---- Respondents

(Cause-title taken from Case Information System)

For Petitioner

: Mr. Kishore Bhaduri, senior counsel assisted

by Mr. Siddharth Shukla, Advocate.

For Respondent No. 1 : Mr. Ashish Shrivastava, senior counsel

assisted by Mr. Aman Pandey, Advocate.

For Respondent No. 2 : Mr. Anumeh Shrivastava, Advocate.

For Respondent No. 3 : Mr. Animesh Tiwari, Advocate.

Date of Hearing

: 07.04.2022

Date of Judgment

: 12.05.2022

Hon’ble Mr. Arup Kumar Goswami, Chief Justice

Hon’ble Mr. Gautam Chourdiya, Judge

C.A.V. Judgment

Per Arup Kumar Goswami, Chief Justice

WPC No. 1844 of 2020 and WPC No. 2479 of 2020 are filed by

the same petitioner against the same respondents and the subject matter

in both the writ petitions are substantially same. In WPC No. 2479 of 2020,

3

cause of action that had accrued subsequent to the filing of WPC No. 1844

of 2020 are incorporated.

2.

These two petitions have been listed together and, accordingly,

both the writ petitions are disposed of by this common order.

3. The facts of the case as pleaded by the writ petitioner in WPC

No.1844 of 2020, inter alia, are that the petitioner is a marine specialist

company dealing with ports and marine infrastructure, ship building and

ship repair, water front developments including floating marinas, water

sports facilities and water activities with experience of 21 years.

4.

Respondent No. 1 had issued an Expression of Interest dated

06.12.2015 “for setting up, development, management and operation

‘integrated leisure destination’ and its peripheral area situated at Swami

Vivekanand Sarovar (Budha Talab), Raipur, Chhattisgarh, (herein after

referred to as ‘licensed premises’)”.

5.

On being declared as a successful bidder, a License Agreement

dated 25.10.2016 was executed between the petitioner and respondent

No.1. The activities covered under the planned scope of licensed premises

included jetty with jet boats, floating party boat, water sports, adventure

and amusement activities, etc. The petitioner is to invest a sum of Rs. 12

crores in the project and that petitioner had already invested an amount of

Rs. 5 crores. The project was to be operationalised in phased manner

subject to receipt of permissions/approvals from the concerned authorities

within the time-frame as provided in clause 4. In terms of clause 5, license

period was 30 years from the date of commencement with a right of

renewal for further 30 years.

4

6.

Clause 5.3 provides that a period of eighteen months shall be

given to fur