Heard both sides.
2. The petitioner is a State owned Transport Corporation owned by the Government of Tamil Nadu. They have come forward to file the present writ petition seeking to challenge the order dated 06.01.2009 passed by the third respondent, wherein by which the petitioner Corporation was directed to vacate the land occupied by them and surrender the possession within one month from the date of receipt of the order.
3.Notice was ordered on the writ petition. Pending the writ petition, this Court granted an order of status quo to be maintained by the parties. Though M.P.No.2 of 2009 was filed by the Corporation, directing the third respondent to receive the rents for the year 2009, no orders were passed.
4. It is the case of the petitioner that originally they were operating 8 express services from Chennai to Puducherry. During 1978, it was increased to 18 services. The petitioner Corporation requested the Government of Puducherry to allot about 5 acres of land to establish its depot and also to operate the buses catering to the needs of the public. The petitioner Corporation was allotted the site bearing Rs.No.137 and 138 to the extent of 66,324 Sq.Ft belonging to Chinna Subburaya Pillai Charity in Maraimalainagar Salai, Pudupalayam, Puducherry. The Corporation approached the Commissioner for grant of a long lease of the said property.
5. Pursuant to their demand, the second respondent Government of Union Territory by G.O.Ms.No.262 LA Department dated 22.11.1979 granted a lease for 15 years subject to conditions. The annual rent was fixed at Rs.14,923/- which was to be revised once in five years. It was proposed to use the front portion as the Bus stand and the rear portion as the Bus Depot. The necessary infrastructure for the Bus Stand and Bus Depot such as M-Shed, Washing platform, Administrative Block, Store Room, concrete flooring, compound wall, Bus shelter etc., were provided at a cost of Rs.35 lakhs by the petitioner.
6. By G.O.Ms.No.27/81/LAD/B.1 dated 20.02.1981, the second respondent allotted the vacant land lying on the rear side of the Depot and Bus Stand in S.No.134/1 and 138/Part to a further extent of about 20,925 sq.ft on lease at an annual rent of Rs.4,710/- to the petitioner Corporation. This additional lease period commenced from 01.07.1981 and the duration of the lease was for 15 years and lease deed was also executed. Therefore, for the entire area leased out to the Corporation, they were paying annual rent of Rs.19,633/- from 01.07.1981. On and from 01.07.1988, the annual rent was increased to Rs.2,72,216/-.
7. On a representation made by the petitioner, the rental was reduced to Rs.1,36,108/- per annum. But the Corporation did not agree for payment of such an amount and therefore, they once again took up the matter with the third respondent for fixing a reasonable rent. The third respondent by a letter dated 20.06.1994 finally reduced the rent to Rs.1 lakh per annum for the period from 01.01.1988 to 31.12.1994 and to refix the rent once in every three years by giving 10% enhancement from the year 1995. Two lease agreements were also executed to this effect.
8. Subsequently, when the lease period to be renewed for the period from 01.10.2001 to 31.12.2003 came up, the third respondent requested the additional land which was leased out on the rear side of the Depot to be handed over to them. The petitioner Corporation requested compensation for the improvement carried out in the premises and also for a proportionate reduction of rent. The third respondent did not agree for payment of compensation of Rs.7 lakhs on the ground that lease agreement did not contain any such clause.
9. In the meanwhile, the third respondent by a letter dated 03.04.2006 requested the petitioner to hand over the entire land citing administrative reasons. The petitioner Corporation requested the third respondent to drop the proposal for re-transfer of the premises on the ground that the premises is used for the benefit of the public at Puducherry.
10. The second respondent had proposed to construct a shopping Complex in the premises leased out to the petitioner Corporation. It was resolved in the meeting held under the Chairmanship of the Minister for Local Administration on 29.11.2007 to initiate action to vacate the Bus Depot of the petitioner. The same was also announced in the Assembly. By an order dated 21.05.2008, the third respondent requested the petitioner Corporation to vacate the premises and hand over the same to the Charity. However, the Corporation requested the third respondent to drop the eviction notice and to enter into a fresh lease agreement. It was also claimed that the petitioner Corporation has at present a fleet strength of 50 buses and is operating services from Puducherry to Chennai and the location of a new depot with all infrastructures is not possible due to financial constraints. The present Depot is also close to the Municipal Bus stand.
11. On 09.10.2008, the officials of the petitioner Corporation met the Minister for Local Administration and made a request to drop the eviction notice. The officials also met the Hon'ble Chief Minister and the Ministers for Local Administration and Social Welfare. The petitioner Corporation was instructed to vacate the premises within one month and finally by the impugned order dated 06.01.2009, they were directed to vacate the premises. It is against this order, they have come forward to file the present writ petition against the Union Territory of Puducherry as well as the third respondent.
12. In the counter affidavit dated 03.07.2009 filed on behalf of the respondents, it was stated that new Municipal bus stand had started functioning from the year 1986 and space is available in the Bus Stand Complex adjacent to Hotel Mass at Maraimalai Adigal Salai. It was stated that by having its exclusive Bus Stand in the land allotted to them, the petitioner Corporation sub-let the space to shopkeepers and were earning monthly rent which was brought to the notice of the third respondent. It took 12 years for the writ petitioner to vacate the sub-lessee. It was therefore decided not to sub-let the shops by the Lessee to the shop owners. In paragraphs No.13 and 17, it was averred as follows:-
"13. ...I submit that in practice the rent is fixed adopting the Guide Line Value communicated by Revenue Department of Government of Puducherry and every year the Land Value is on the ascending trend and the revenue which ought to have been realized adopting the Guide Line Value the ground rent will be undoubtedly on the higher side which the Comite-de-Bienfaisance/ Sinna Subrayapillai Charity is loosing every year and Comite-de-bienfaisance/ Sinna Subrayapillai Charity cannot afford to loose its revenue year by year and the purpose of Charity will be lost and therefore Comite-de-bienfaisance/Sinna Subrayapillai Charity desires to put the land for Income generating activities so that the income realized by the Comite-de-bienfaisance shall be utilized to the ever continuing charitable activities without any interruption.
17. The Comite-de-bienfaisance is undertaking the charity for the welfare of the poor people as a charity bound programme only from the income /revenue derived from its properties and Puudhcerry Municipality is the custodian of the charitable trust. When the income/revenue is blocked/disturbed, naturally it will affect the charitable activities of the trust."
13. If the underpayment of rental is the only issue, the matter can be resolved rather than filing a writ petition under
Article 226 of the Constitution against the Union Territory of Puducherry. Such a course of action will unnecessarily bring administrative difficulties to both sides. The matter will have to be resolved through bilateral negotiations between the parties.
14. The Supreme Court vide its judgment in Oil and Natural Gas Corpn. Ltd. vs. City and Industrial Development Corporation, Maharashtra Ltd and others reported in (2007) 7 SCC 39 held that Intra-governmental or intergovernmental disputes involving government department or government owned companies of the Central and State Governments should be resolved by setting up governmental committee rather than adjudicating the same in a writ petition.
15. In that case, the Supreme Court referred to the previous cases on that issue. The first reference was to the Chief Conservator of Forests v. Collector reported in 2003 3 SCC 472. In paragraph 14 it was observed as follows:-
"14. Under the Scheme of the Constitution,
Article 131 confers original jurisdiction on the Supreme Court in regard to a dispute between two States of the Union of India or between one or more States and the Union of India. It was not contemplated by the framers of the Constitution or CPC that two departments of a State or the Union of India will fight a litigation in a court of law. It is neither appropriate nor permissible for two departments of a State or the Union of India to fight litigation in a court of law. Indeed, such a course cannot but be detrimental to the public interest as it also entails avoidable wastage of public money and time. Various departments of the Government are its limbs and, therefore, they must act in coordination and not in confrontation. Filing of a writ petition by one department against the other by invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of the High Court is not only against the propriety and polity as it smacks of indiscipline but is also contrary to the basic concept of law which requires that for suing or being sued, there must be either a natural or a juristic person. The States/Union of India must evolve a mechanism to set at rest all interdepartmental controversies at the level of the Government and such matters should not be carried to a court of law for resolution of the controversy. In the case of disputes between public sector undertakings and the Union of India, this Court in ONGC (I) v. CCE called upon the Cabinet Secretary to handle such matters. In ONGC (II) v. CCE this Court directed the Central Government to set up a committee consisting of representatives from the Ministry of Industry, the Bureau of Public Enterprises and the Ministry of Law, to monitor disputes between Ministry and Ministry of the Government of India, Ministry and public sector undertakings of the Government of India and public sector undertakings in between themselves, to ensure that no litigation comes to court or to a tribunal without the matter having been first examined by the Committee and its clearance for litigation. The Government may include a representative of the Ministry concerned in a specific case and one from the Ministry of Finance in the Committee. Senior officers only should be nominated so that the Committee would function with status, control and discipline."
16. The second reference was to Punjab and Sind Bank vs. Allahabad Bank reported in 2006 4 SCC 780. Once again Chief Conservator of Forests' case (cited supra), was referred to. In Paragraph 15, it was observed as follows:-
"15. The facts of this appeal, noticed above, make out a strong case that there is a felt need of setting up of similar committees by the State Government also to resolve the controversy arising between various departments of the State or the State and any of its undertakings. It would be appropriate for the State Governments to set up a committee consisting of the Chief Secretary of the State, the Secretaries of the departments concerned, the Secretary of Law and where financial commitments are involved, the Secretary of Finance. The decision taken by such a committee shall be binding on all the departments concerned and shall be the stand of the Government."
17. Once again the Supreme Court in Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd. v. Chairman, CBDT reported in (2004) 6 SCC 431 referred to the earlier cases and directed the constitution of intra-departmental committee.
18. In the light of the above, this Court is of the opinion that Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation instead of fighting the battle against the Government of another Union territory should adopt the method of direct negotiation between the parties. Since the Transport Corporation is catering to the needs of the public and they have been operating for several years, it is hereby directed that the Chief Secretary to the Tamil Nadu Government must convene a meeting with the concerned Managing Director of the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation, Secretary to Transport Department, Government of Tamil Nadu, Secretary to Transport Department, Government of Puducherry and Secretary to Local Authorities Department, Government of Puducherry. The said meeting shall be convened within three weeks from the date of receipt of the order by the Chief Secretary to the Government of Tamilnadu. After discussing all the aspects of the issue, they should respectively inform the respective ministers. If there is unanimity about their proposal, both the Governments can implement the order. In case, there is difference of opinion in the committee's proceedings, they can report to their respective Ministers in-charge of the department namely, the Minister for Transport, Government of Tamil Nadu and the Minister for Local Authority, Government of Puducherry and try to find out through bilateral talks at an higher level. This exercise shall be done within a period of six months from the date of receipt of the order. Any consensus arrived at shall be intimated by the parties to this Court. Till such time, status quo as on date shall be maintained. The petitioner Corporation is hereunder continue to pay the rentals as agreed before and the concerned respondent shall receive it without prejudice to their claim for an higher rental.
19. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
svki To
1.The Lt.Governor of The Union Territory of Puducherry Puducherry.
2.The Secretary to Government, The Union Territory of Puducherry Local Administration Department, Puducherry.
3.Comite De Bienfaisance Represented by the Commissioner, Puducherry Municipality, Puducherry