Karnataka High Court
Sri. Hatelsab S/O Dastagirsab Kolhar vs State Bank Of India on 9 April, 2018
Author: Krishna S Dixit
Bench: Krishna S.Dixit
1 WP No.101062/2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 09 t h DAY OF APRIL 2018
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE KRISHNA S.DIXIT
WRIT PETITION No.101062 of 2018 [GM-RES]
BETWEEN:
SRI. HATELSAB
S/O DASTAGIRSAB KOLHAR
AGED: 64 YEARS,
OCC: RETD GOVT. SERVANT,
R/O: KOLHAR PLAZA,
KRISHNAGIRI COLONY,
ANAND NAGAR, MAIN ROAD,
HUBBALLI-580024,
DIST: DHARWAD.
... PETITIONER
(By Sri. D L LADKHAN ADV.)
AND:
1. STATE BANK OF INDIA
BY ITS REGIONAL MANAGER,
SBI ZONAL OFFICE,
T.S. COMPLEX,
SOLAPUR ROAD,
HUBBALLI-580023,
DIST: DHARWAD.
2. STATE BANK OF INDIA
BY ITS ASSISTANT MANAGER,
2 WP No.101062/2018
SMALL AND MEDIUM ENTERPRISES
CITY CREDIT CENTRE,
ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE,
T.S. COMPLEX,
SHOLAPUR ROAD,
KESHWAPUR,
HUBBALLI-580023,
DIST: DHARWAD.
3. STATE BANK OF INDIA
ANAND NAGAR BRANCH,
BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER,
NO.81/B, KRISHNAGIRI COLONY,
80 FEET ROAD, ANAND NAGAR,
HUBBALLI-580024,
DIST: DHARWAD.
4. STATE BANK OF INDIA
SIDDARUDH NAGAR BRANCH,
BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER,
NEAR SIDDARUDH MATH,
OLD HUBBALLI,
HUBBALLI-580024,
DIST: DHARWAD.
5. STATE BANK OF INDIA
BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER,
(PRINCIPAL NODAL OFFICER)
STATE BANK BHAVAN,
11TH FLOOR, MADAM CAMA ROAD,
MUMBAI-400021.
6. STATE BANK OF INDIA
HEAD OFFICE KARNATAKA,
BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER,
SAINT MARKS ROAD,
SHANTHALA NAGAR,
SAMPANGI RAMA ROAD,
BENGALURU-560001.
3 WP No.101062/2018
7. UNION OF INDIA
REP. BY JOINT SECRETARY,
DEPARTMENT OF FINANCIAL SERVICES,
MINISTRY OF FINANCE,
3RD FLOOR,
JEEVAN DEEP BUILDING,
SANSAD MARG,
NEW DELHI-110001.
... RESPONDENTS
(By Sri. K L PATIL ADV. FOR R1-R6;
SRI.M.B.KANAVI, SCGC FOR R7)
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING THIS HON'BLE COURT TO:
1) QUASH LETTER BEARING NO.MISC/33/17-18
DATED 11.01.2018 VIDE ANNEXURE-Q ISSUED
BY RESPONDENT NO.3.
2) DIRECT THE RESPONDENT NO.1235 & 6
CONSIDER REPRESENTATION DATED
15.01.2018 VIDE ANNEXURE-Q1 TO Q5
This Petition coming on for Preliminary Hearing in 'B'
group, this day the Court made the following:-
ORDER
In this Writ Petition, the petitioner has laid a challenge to the letter bearing No.Misc/33/2017-18 dated 11.01.2018, at Annexure 'Q' to the Writ Petition whereby the 3rd respondent/Bank has in effect 4 WP No.101062/2018 terminated a contract of lease incorporated in the registered instruments dated 03/04.12.2013 and 10.07.2014.
2. Brief facts stated are that:
(i) Respondent No.3 Bank is an instrumentality of the State as defined under Article 12 of the Constitution of India, having been established under the provisions of the State Bank of India Act, 1955; it had entered into leases duly executed and registered on 04.12.2013 and 10.07.2014 for a stipulated tenure of ten years. The respondent/Bank vide its impugned letter dated 11.01.2018 at Annexure 'Q' has terminated the said arrangement unilaterally; this action of the respondent/Bank is unjust, arbitrary and illegal, inasmuch as the petitioner has invested huge sums of money borrowed from the very same Bank under the MSME Scheme as an industry.
(ii) After notice, the 3 r d respondent entered appearance and filed its detailed objections dated 5 WP No.101062/2018 06.04.2018, resisted the writ petition on various grounds. It has also denied the petition averments except the lease in question. It also contends that the lease is a matter of contract governed by the provisions of Transfer of Property Act and that the termination of the lease again is a matter of contract only; there is no scope for invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction vested under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution of India.
3. I have carefully considered the rival contentions at the Bar. The registered lease dated 03.12.2013 is purely a matter of contract between the parties. Paragraph 5(h) of the said lease reads:
"5(h) That the Lessee shall have
further option of terminating the
lease hereby granted at any time
during the tenancy thereof on giving the Lessor three calendar month's previous notice in writing."
6 WP No.101062/2018
4. Thus, in exercise of right reserved to the lessee, this Lease has been terminated with three months notice as stipulated in the said paragraph. If it is an illegal termination, the grievance of the petitioner has to be worked out in a regularly constituted civil suit and not a writ petition.
5. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the 3rd respondent/Bank is established under a Parliamentary enactment and therefore, it answers description of "State" as defined under Article 12 of the Constitution of India as meant by the Apex Court in the case of RAMANA DAYARAM SHETTY Vs. THE INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT AUTHORITY OF INDIA AND OTHERS, AIR 1979 SC 1628, and therefore, all actions of the instrumentality of State are pregnant with public law element is misconceived.
7 WP No.101062/2018
6. The Apex Court in the case of LIC of INDIA Vs. ESCORTS LIMITED AND OTHERS, AIR 1986 SC 1370, has held as under:
"While it cannot be doubted that every action of the State or an instrumentality of the State must be informed by reason and that, in appropriate cases, actions uninformed by reason may be questioned as arbitrary in proceedings under Art.226 or Art.32 of the Constitution. Art.14 cannot be construed as a charter for judicial review of State actions in its manifold activities by stating reasons for such actions. For example, if the action of the State is political or sovereign in character, the court will keep away from it. The Court will not debate academic matters or concern itself with the intricacies of trade and commerce. If the action of the State is related to contractual obligations or obligations arising out of the tort, the Court may not ordinarily examine it unless the action has some public law character attached to it. Broadly speaking, the court will examine actions of State if they pertain to the public law 8 WP No.101062/2018 domain and refrain from examining them if they pertain to the private law field."
6A. The above legal position apart, the question whether the termination of lease is good or bad in law and if bad, what remedy is to be provided require oral and documentary evidence and thus, the trial in a full fledged way becomes inevitable. Ordinarily such disputed facts are not adjudicated in extraordinary jurisdiction under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution, when the aggrieved has an alternative and efficacious remedy of suit. Petitioner is at liberty to avail the said remedy.
7. Therefore, the petition is bereft of merits and consequently is dismissed. However, the dismissal of the Writ Petition will not come in the way of petitioner seeking rescheduling of the loan transaction with the 3 r d respondent Bank in accordance with law.
9 WP No.101062/2018
The Bank may consider the hardship occasioned by the abrupt termination of the leases in question.
Sd/-
JUDGE RK/-