Petitioner challenges Exts.P7 and P9. Ext.P7 is the notice dated 23/04/2014 issued by the 2nd respondent proposing to terminate the contract of Cadets Cafeteria which was given on licence in favour of the petitioner for a period of ten months from 01/12/2013 and due to expire on 30/09/2014. The petitioner was informed by Ext.P7 that the contract will be terminated by the 2nd respondent by invoking paragraph 41 of the agreement between the parties and the petitioner was given 60 days time to vacate the Cafeteria premises. The time for vacating expires on 21/06/2014. The petitioner submitted Ext.P8 reply and the complaint of the petitioner is that despite submission of Ext.P8, he is not permitted to continue the contract of conducting the Cafeteria. That apart, the respondents have invited tender by way of Ext.P9 for awarding the contract for conducting the Cafeteria.
2. The main contention urged by the petitioner is that Ext.P7 is bad in law in so far as the licensor has not invoked paragraph 41. Whereas it is issued by another person, 2nd respondent herein. That apart, his objection at Ext.P8 has not been considered.
3. The Learned Standing Counsel representing the respondents would submit that the contract of Cafeteria was based on certain terms and conditions and several times the petitioner was called upon to keep up the hygiene and quality of the food but since there was lapse on his part, they were forced to issue Ext.P7 in terms of the contractual provisions. That apart, when fresh tenders were called, the petitioner also participated, but the tender was awarded to another person.
4. Having regard to the aforesaid fact, it is clear that the petitioner was conducting cafeteria on a licence basis subject to the terms and conditions of the licence. If the licensor felt that the petitioner is not complying with the terms of the licence it shall always be open for the licensor to cancel the same. Such an eventuality has occurred in the present case and the licensor through his subordinate officer has issued Ext.P7. If the petitioner has a contention that the factual statement in Ext.P7 is wrong or that he has not committed any breach of promise of the licence, his remedy is not to seek specific performance of the terms of the licence but can only sue for damages for the loss he has suffered on account of a wrongful act on the part of the respondents.
Under these circumstances, reserving the right of the petitioner to approach the Civil court for appropriate reliefs, this writ petition is dismissed.
(sd/-) (A.M.SHAFFIQUE, JUDGE) jsr