A license renewal requires mutual agreement; the absence of such agreement negates the right to renewal, regardless of prior compliance.

JUDGMENT

This writ petition is filed seeking to set aside Clause 9 in Ext.P1, which refers to the decision of the Director to invite fresh tenders with the object of denying renewal of licence for the operation of the parking area of 'Kerala Hydel Tourism Centre, Banasura Sagar Unit', Wayanad, to the petitioner, and seeking to declare that petitioner is entitled to get renewal of the licence to operate the parking area under the above Tourism Centre, for the next two years, since he had duly complied with all procedural formalities for getting renewal of the licence as per the agreement, and for other related reliefs. Material facts for the disposal of the writ petition are as follows:

2. Petitioner belongs to Scheduled Tribe community.

He is residing in an Adivasi area in Wayanad District. According to the petitioner, his family is solely depending on his meagre income derived from the operation and management of the parking area attached to the Kerala Hydel Tourism Centre, Banasura Sagar Unit. Pursuant to the notification issued by the 2nd respondent inviting tenders for the operation of parking business in the year 2015, petitioner submitted tender along with others. It was accepted by the 2nd respondent and agreement was executed in this behalf, evident from Ext.P3. The relevant portion of the tender notification is produced as Ext.P2. On execution of the agreement, petitioner has deposited the total amount of Rs.7,15,011/- as security, evident from Ext.P4 receipt. As per the agreement, petitioner is bound to pay Rs.65,001/- every month as licence fee for the parking area, and he had regularly deposited the said amount without any default, and the latest receipt dated 06.06.2016 is produced as Ext.P5.

3. That apart, it is contended, petitioner had already applied for renewal of the licence before the expiry of the period now fixed under the above agreement. According to the petitioner, Ext.P6 reminder application dated 09.06.2016 was also submitted. Thereafter, Ext.P7 representation was also filed by the petitioner before the Minister for Electricity. However, the same were not considered by the respective statutory authorities. That apart, it is contended, due to the change of Government, respondents who are having leniency towards the present ruling party are denying the benefit of renewal and taking urgent steps to invite fresh tender for the grant of this facility of operation of parking area. It is also stated, in the case of grant of licence in respect of similarly situated persons, i.e. 'CAFETERIA', club building etc., same is awarded for a period of 36 months from March 2015, evident from Exts.P8 and P9. Therefore, according to the petitioner, the action of the respondents is arbitrary, discriminatory, malafide and unfair. It is in these circumstances, the writ petition is filed seeking appropriate reliefs.

4. Second respondent has filed a counter affidavit stating that, 2nd respondent is a Charitable Society registered under the provisions of Act XII of 1955, and contends that being a society registered under the provisions of Act XII of 1955, no writ petition is maintainable against the society. Moreover, it is stated, society is not discharging any sovereign function, and that it is a society found for the purpose of effective utilization of water based tourism potential in the natural surroundings of the hydel project areas of Kerala and preserve the ecology of hydel project areas. It is also contended, 2nd respondent society is not a 'State' within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India.

5. That apart, it is contended, there is no averment or allegation in the writ petition with respect to violation of any of the rights of the petitioner, leave alone, fundamental right consequent to any act of the 2nd respondent. That apart, it is submitted, the grievance raised in the writ petition is purely within the domain of contractual relationship between the petitioner and the society, and therefore no wri