Allahabad High Court
Manoj Kumar Yadav vs Pujab National Bank And Another on 6 April, 2022
Bench: Manoj Kumar Gupta, Dinesh Pathak
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Court No. - 21 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 7735 of 2022 Petitioner :- Manoj Kumar Yadav Respondent :- Pujab National Bank And Another Counsel for Petitioner :- Balendra Deo Misra Counsel for Respondent :- Sanjai Singh Hon'ble Manoj Kumar Gupta,J.
Hon'ble Dinesh Pathak,J.
The instant writ petition has been filed praying for quashing of an internal communication of the respondent-Bank granting sanction for calling fresh tenders for installation of new DG-Set for the branch. It takes note of the fact that the agreement of the petitioner for running generator set had expired on 30.4.2021.
The petitioner has also prayed for a mandamus directing the respondents not to interfere in the peaceful running of the generator set by the petitioner and for a direction to pay the remaining rental to him.
The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner entered into an agreement with the respondent-Bank for supply of power to the Bank with the aid of generator of 25 KVA. From time to time the terms and conditions kept on changing. On 3.4.2018 while renewing the agreement it was provided that the petitioner shall be paid monthly rent of Rs.30,500/- and the said amount would remain valid for a period of three years. It was further stipulated in the said agreement that unless one of the parties give notice to the contrary, the present contract would be renewed for one year on the same terms and conditions. It is also mentioned that the renewal will be done for two terms in addition to the first term. It seems that during currency of the agreement dated 3.4.2018, the parties entered into a fresh agreement which became effective from 10.5.2019 whereunder it was provided that the rent would be Rs.30,500/- per month and would be applicable for three years. It was further provided that in case the rate of diesel is increased/decreased by Re. 1/- monthly rent will be increased/decreased by Rs.322/-.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has challenged the action of the respondent-Bank in inviting fresh quotations on the ground that the contract with the petitioner is still subsisting and that one month notice as provided under the agreement dated 3.4.2018 has not been given to the petitioner so far and consequently, it was not open to the respondent-Bank to invite fresh quotations.
On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent-Bank submitted that the new contract will come into force only after expiry of period of three years from 9.5.2019.
It is not disputed before us that after execution of agreement dated 3.4.2018 it seems that on account of increase in price of diesel, the parties entered into a fresh contract and which became effective from 10.5.2019. The rate of rent fixed thereunder was to remain applicable for three years and from which it can be inferred that the duration of the contract was also for three years.
In such view of the matter, we are of the opinion that the agreement of the petitioner would continue to be operative till 9.5.2022.
Learned counsel for the respondent-Bank has already taken a stand before us that the impugned communication only contains terms and conditions on which fresh quotations have been invited and that the fresh contract would be applicable only after expiry of the period of contract of the petitioner. We are of the opinion that there arises no occasion for the petitioner to challenge the action of the respondent-Bank in undertaking exercise for inviting fresh quotations. It is always open to the petitioner also to participate in the fresh tender process.
Accordingly, we dispose of the instant writ petition by providing that while the respondent-Bank is free to proceed with the process of calling fresh tender but the new contract will become effective only after expiry of the period of contract with the petitioner.
As regard, relief for recovery of arrears of rent, it is open to the petitioner to represent in this regard before the respondent-Bank and incase, any amount is found to be in arrears, the respondent-Bank shall take steps to clear of the same.
(Dinesh Pathak, J.) (Manoj Kumar Gupta, J.) Order Date :- 6.4.2022/Deepika