PANJIM: The India Hotels Company Limited, Sinquerim-Candolim has filed a petition before the Bombay High Court at Goa praying to quash the Goa government’s order cancelling deed of lease and penalty of Rs 65 crore.
The Secretary (Tourism) J Ashok Kumar by an order dated October 20, 2021, had terminated the lease deed dated June 19, 1997 executed by the Goa government with the Indian Resort Hotels Limited (now M/s The Indian Hotels Company Limited). The company was further directed to pay the arrears of rent along with interest amounting to Rs 65.02 crore within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of the order.
The termination order shall be effective from six months from the date of issue of the order.
The Goa government had executed the deed of lease with the then Indian Resort Hotels Limited for a period of 50 years commencing from July 1, 1997 and ending on June 30, 2047, for the purpose of developing a recreational park of international standards with allied facilities at Aguada, Sinquerim in the land admeasuring three lakh square metres. The respondent — Indian Resort Hotels Limited was required to pay Rs one crore or five per cent of the gross turnover of the recreational park payable to the government per annum, whichever is higher.
But since the respondent failed to pay the lease rent from July 1, 1998, the government issued a show cause notice dated February 6, 2013 to the respondent asking him to pay a sum of Rs 14 crore towards the lease rent with effect from July 1, 1998 till June 30, 2012 and a sum of Rs 16.81 lakh towards the interest at the rate of 16 per cent per annum on the lease rent remaining unpaid within a period of one-month from the date of receipt of the notice.
The notice also stated that if the company fails to pay the dues, the said lease deed will be terminated and all outstanding dues will be recovered as arrears of land revenue, and any development and non-removable assets if any situated upon the said land will vest in the government.
However, the company raised preliminary objections to the notice and filed a reply stating that a delay to execute the project was due to difficulties faced to obtain required permissions. In August last year the respondent requested the Secretary (Tourism) to appoint an arbitrator and to desist from holding any hearing and passing any order to any dispute under the lease deed. But the Secretary held that it was a mere delay tactic and that the respondent is trying to confuse issues instead of replying to the notice dated February 6, 2013.
The petition is likely to come up for hearing before the High Court next week.
