‘Ashiana’, ‘Goofa’ to remain with HPTDC: SC

New Delhi, March 28

After a 13-year legal battle, the Himachal Pradesh Tourism Development Corporation (HPTDC) on Wednesday retained the right to operate the two landmark restaurants — Ashiana and Goofa — on The Ridge, with the Supreme Court setting aside the High Court orders on leasing them out afresh.

Ashiana restaurant and Goofa bar and restaurant on The Ridge are famous among tourists due to their open space and scenic view.

The top court, after 13 years of litigation, set aside the two orders of the state High Court of May 24, 2005, and July 5, 2005, by which it had directed the Shimla Municipal Corporation (SMC) to invite bids from interested parties for giving the property on lease/licence basis.

A bench of Chief Justice Dipak Misra and Justice AM Khanwilkar said the High Court order of May 24, 2005, “transcends beyond the relief claimed by the writ petitioner and more so, is a mandatory order passed at an interlocutory stage without recording any just and tangible reasons”.

“As a result, besides setting aside the impugned judgment and orders dated May 24, 2005, and July 5, 2005, respectively, we are inclined to dispose of the writ petition with the aforementioned observations. Thus, the...filed in the High Court of Himachal Pradesh in Shimla, be deemed to have been disposed of accordingly,” the bench said.

It, however, said the issue of outstanding dues payable by the HPTDC to the Shimla MC could be resolved with the intervention of the state.

“In that, if the HPTDC is financially incapable of settling the claim/demand of the Municipal Corporation, the state may have to provide financial assistance to the HPTDC to the extent necessary, failing which the Municipal Corporation will be left with no other option but to take recourse to statutory remedies for recovery of its dues from HPTDC in relation to the subject premises,” the bench said.

It said that since the state had also challenged the order of the High Court, it must take initiative to find out a suitable solution in accordance with law, “expeditiously and within a reasonable time”, failing which it might be open to the SMC to resort to recovery proceedings against the HPTDC and including its eviction from the suit premises.

The apex court said the High Court had not even adverted to the “efficacy of the subsisting contract between the Municipal Corporation and the HPTDC” and if it had felt that rent payable by the HPTDC was on the lower side, it should have first “authoritatively hold that the HPTDC was not legally entitled to remain in occupation of the subject premises”.

“It is unfathomable as to how the High Court could have passed the order dated May 24, 2005, to straightway direct the Municipal Corporation to issue tender notice. There is no indication in the order passed by the High Court on May 24, 2005, of having quashed the subsisting contract between Municipal Corporation and HPTDC,” the bench said.

It said that without deciding on the issue of validity of the subsisting contractual terms and conditions between the Municipal Corporation and HPTDC, the High Court could not and should not have ventured to pass the order, such as dated May 24, 2005 and the July 5, 2005, order which was a consequential order. — PTI

SMC told to pay Rs 10 lakh to bidder

The apex court set aside the two orders of the High Court by which it had directed the Shimla MC to invite bids from interested parties for giving the property on lease basis. It also directed the SMC to refund the earnest money of Rs 10 lakh deposited by N&S Resorts  which was the highest bidder in the court directed tender process.