Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Sri Nirmal Kumar Das vs United Bank Of India & Ors on 14 July, 2010
Author: Jayanta Kumar Biswas
Bench: Jayanta Kumar Biswas
1
In the High Court at Calcutta
Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction
Appellate Side
Present:
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jayanta Kumar Biswas.
W.P. No. 14266 (W) of 2010
Sri Nirmal Kumar Das
v.
United Bank of India & Ors.
Mr Tapas K. Hazra and Mr Sandip K. Bhattacharyya, advocates, for the
petitioner. Mr Manoranjan Jana, advocate, for the fifth respondent. Ms Runi
Chakraborty and Mr Debasis Bhandari, advocates, for the Bank.
Heard on: July 14, 2010.
Judgment on: July 14, 2010.
The Court: - The petitioner in this art.226 petition dated July 2, 2010 is alleging that without any reason and notice the Bank, the first respondent, disconnected the generator through which he was supplying the Bank electricity according to terms and conditions of an agreement dated December 1, 2008 under which the Bank was to pay him Rs.3,800 hire charges per month.
On the basis of written instructions counsel for the Bank submits as follows. The petitioner was giving service through a 4.5 KVA generator. From August 14, 2009 the branch "was converted to Core Banking Solution business." Accordingly it needed a generator of higher capacity. It put the work out to tender. Through the process one Joydeb Maity was selected. By a letter dated August 14, 2009 the petitioner was requested to discontinue his service. He did not comply with the request. Under the circumstances, the Bank was compelled to discontinue the service.
Correctness of these facts has been disputed by counsel for the petitioner.
The question is what public law element is involved in the Bank's decision and action to discontinue the service. Needless to say that in the absence of any public law element involved in the decision and action of the Bank the petitioner is not entitled to the public law remedy under art.226 before the High Court.
It is evident from the petitioner's case and the submissions made by counsel for the Bank that if the Bank is in breach of anything at all, then it is in breach of a private law contract between the parties. The petitioner is seeking 2 enforcement of a private law contractual right, if there is at all one, flowing solely from the contract dated December 1, 2008 between the parties.
I am, therefore, of the view that the decision and action of the Bank do not involve any public law element. Admittedly, the petitioner is not enforcing any public law right. He is, therefore, not entitled to the public law remedy under art.226. His remedy, if any, is before the Civil Court or the forum, if any, mentioned in the agreement between the parties.
For these reasons, the petition is dismissed. Written instructions relied on by counsel for the Bank shall be kept in the records of the case. No costs. Certified xerox.
(Jayanta Kumar Biswas, J.)