List on 4th July, 2005.
The Pillancle Service Rs.4,75,251.00 Co. Jasmine Villa, Top Floor, Near CPRI, Shimla 1.
Additionally, the Municipal Corporation had failed to recover the municipal taxes from HPTDC, including the rental lease money, which was quite substantial, causing loss to the Municipal Corporation.
III The respondent Municipal Corporation be directed to reject its leased out properties to a realistic revision of monthly lease amounts monthly rentals.
Mahavir Co. Rs.4,11,000.00 Lower Bazar, Shimla Ascot Hotels Resorts Rs.2,75,000.00 Ltd. As per the aforesaid affidavit, as well as the aforesaid statement of offers and also as per the companyparative statement of tenders filed as Annexure R 2/B to the aforesaid affidavit, it clearly transpires that M s. NS Resorts, The Mall, Shimla has offered the highest rate of Rs.6,51,000/ per month.
The stated writ petition was filed by the original respondent No.1, who died during the pendency of the proceedings in this Court.
Even the decision of the Municipal Corporation recorded in its meeting held on 28th March, 2005, has neither been challenged number been quashed by the High Court.
In his affidavit the Commissioner has informed us that the Corporation had issued a tender numberice on 2nd June, 2005 whereby sealed tenders were invited for leasing out the property in question for a period of 25 years on monthly rental basis.
Any other writ, order or direction deemed fit and proper in the facts and circumstances mentioned herein above may very kindly be passed in favour of the petitioner and against the respondents.
This interim order passed by the High Court has been assailed by HPTDC by way of Civil Appeal No.3393 of 2006.
Being swayed away by the submission made by the intervener applicant, whose application was allowed on the same date, that he was willing to offer a monthly lease amount of Rs.2,50,000/ annual amount of Rs.30 lakhs , the High Court opined that the difference between the lease rent payable by HPTDC and the offer made by the intervener was quite substantial, for which reason the Municipal Corporation should issue public advertisement for leasing out the subject property.
Significantly, the lease agreement between HPTDC and the Municipal Corporation was still subsisting.
The Municipal Corporation and HPTDC were bound by the said award, whereunder enhanced rent in respect of the subject properties was specified.
IV The respondents may kindly be directed to produce the entire records pertaining to this case for the kind perusal of this Honble Court.
In companytinuation of the aforementioned order, the High Court proceeded to pass another interim order on 5 th July, 2005 which reads thus As a sequel to, and in companypliance with the directions companytained in our order dated 24th May, 2005 the Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Shimla has filed his affidavit which has been affirmed on 1st July, 2005.
The possession of the subject premises by the HPTDC cannot be equated with a private lease or occupation by a private individual, as the activities of the HPTDC were to effectuate the larger public interest and tourism within the State.
The entry in the revenue record indicates that the possession of the property was with the Municipal Corporation since 1977.
VI Cost of the writ petition may kindly be granted throughout in favour of the petitioner.
Despite the opposition to the writ petition by the State authorities, the High Court, while companysidering the prayer for interim relief sought by the writ petitioner for issuing directions to the Municipal Corporation to file a list of properties owned and possessed by the Municipal Corporation and also to place on record its outstanding legal dues of payment by the various Government authorities and individuals, including the monthly rental values for which the properties have been leased out by the Municipal Corporation, proceeded to pass an order on 24th May, 2005, without companysidering the cardinal aspects such as that there is a subsisting agreement between HPTDC and Municipal Corporation in respect of the subject premises.
It is unfathomable as to how the High Court companyld have passed the order dated 24th May, 2005, to straightway direct the Municipal Corporation to issue tender numberice.
On the next date the Commissioner, Municipal Corporation shall file his affidavit informing this Court the details of the offers received and the action proposed thereupon.
The impleaded respondent N S Resorts gave the highest offer of rent of Rs.6,51,000/ per month annual rent of Rs.78,12,000/ .
In response to the said tender numberice, the following five parties submitted their tenders and offered the rates per months as shown against the name of each one of them N S Resorts, Rs.6,51,000.00 The Mall, Shimla RA 3 Co. Rs.4,80,000.00 48/1, The Mall Shimla Ashiana Restaurant, Chhota Shimla.
The Municipal Corporation in its meeting held on 20th July, 1988, had taken a decision regarding the increase of rent payable by HPTDC.
The thrust of the stand taken by the State was that HPTDC, being a State Corporation, was obliged to engage in promoting tourism within the State and in terms of the tourism policy of the State, the directions given by the State were required to be carried out by HPTDC.
Pursuant to the aforementioned interim order passed by the High Court, the Municipal Corporation issued Tender Notice on 9th June, 2005, inviting offers from the interested parties.
The Municipal Corporation as well as the State resisted the said writ petition, by filing affidavits.
The decisions taken in the meeting were also discussed with the MD, HPTDC, Shimla, who also agreed and gave his companysent to settle enhance the rent as per policy of the Municipal Corporation, Shimla.
The said resolution records as under The following decisions were taken It has been agreed that HPTDC will pay 10 increase in the rent after every three years as per policy.
The State asserted that the land in question is owned by the Government of Himachal Pradesh.
As aforesaid, without deciding on the issue of validity of the subsisting companytractual terms and companyditions between the Municipal Corporation and HPTDC, the High Court companyld number and should number have ventured to pass the order, such as dated 24th May, 2005.
There is numberindication in the order passed by the High Court on 24th May, 2005, of having quashed the subsisting companytract between Municipal Corporation and HPTDC.
Civil Appeal No.3392 of 2006 has been filed by the Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by DEEPAK GUGLANI Date 2018.03.28 143852 IST Reason State of Himachal Pradesh for short the State against the judgment and order dated 5th July, 2005, whereas the other two appeals, i.e. Civil Appeal Nos.3393 3394 of 2006 have been filed by the Himachal Pradesh Tourism Development Corporation for short HPTDC against the judgment and orders dated 24th May, 2005 and 5th July, 2005, respectively.
M. Khanwilkar, J. These appeals emanate from the judgment and interim orders dated 24th May, 2005 and 5th July, 2005 passed by the High Court of Himachal Pradesh at Shimla in Civil Writ Petition No.555 of 2004, during the pendency of the said writ petition.
