Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 663 (GAU)

Tarh Eya v. The Chairman APRB and 5 Ors

2025-04-23

MANISH CHOUDHURY

body2025
ORDER : MANISH CHOUDHURY, J. Heard Mr. R. Nabam, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. T. Taba, learned Standing counsel for the Arunachal Pradesh Rural Bank (for short, ‘APRB’)-respondent Nos. 1, 2 & 3. 2. Having regard to the issues raised in this writ petition, this Court has taken up this writ petition for final consideration at the motion stage itself on the issue of maintainability. 3. Invoking the extra-ordinary and discretionary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has instituted the present writ petition with the following prayers: “In the premises stated above, it is most respectfully prayed that, your Lordship would be pleased to admit this petition, call for the records, issue notice/ rules calling upon the respondents to show cause as to why a writ in the nature of certiorari, Mandamus or any other writs should not be issued, quashing and setting aside the impugned notice vide SGL/02- 415/2024-25 dated 14.02.2025 for shifting of premises Arunachal Pradesh Rural Bank (APRB), Sagalee Branch Arunachal Pradesh for arbitrary and malafide shifting of the APRB, Sagalee Branch to other building within Sagalee town without reasonable ground and directed to repay the principal amount with interest deposited by the petitioner and after cause or causes may be shown and upon hearing the parties and on perusal of the records, make the Rule absolute and/ or pass further or other orders as to your Lordship deem fit and proper”. Pending disposal of this writ petition, it is prayed that the impugned notice vide SGL/02-415/2024-25 dated 14.02.2025 may be suspended/stayed till disposal of the instant writ petition”. 4. The petitioner has stated that he is the owner of one RCC building located at Sagalee Market Line. It is projected that the said RCC building premise has enough parking spaces with water supply and electricity connections. On the first floor of the RCC Building, there are 5 (five) rooms. 5. The petitioner has further stated that the respondents-APRB authorities had located one of its branches i.e. Sagalee Branch in the first floor of the petitioner’s RCC building since a long time. Prior to 11.05.2020, the Sagalee Branch of APRB was located and functioning from the first floor of the RCC building without entering into any Lease Agreement with the petitioner. The petitioner has further stated that the respondents-APRB authorities had located one of its branches i.e. Sagalee Branch in the first floor of the petitioner’s RCC building since a long time. Prior to 11.05.2020, the Sagalee Branch of APRB was located and functioning from the first floor of the RCC building without entering into any Lease Agreement with the petitioner. However, on 11.05.2020, a Lease Agreement was entered into between the petitioner as the first party and the Branch Manager of Sagalee Branch-APRB i.e. the respondent No. 3 as the 2nd party. As per the Lease Agreement, the first floor of the RCC building measuring about 1000 Sq. Feet had been leased out to the 2nd Party for a period of 10 (ten) years at a monthly rate of Rs.12,500/- per month with an option to the 2nd party to continue with the lease for a further period of 5 (five) years at a negotiated monthly rent on the same. The monthly rent would be enhanced @25% on completion of every 5 (five) years. 6. The petitioner has approached this Court to assail a notice served on the petitioner by the respondent No. 3 on 14.02.2025. The copy of the said notice has been annexed as Annexure-F at Page no. 118 of the Case Papers. 7. On perusal of the contents of the said impugned notice dated 14.02.2025, it is noticed that by serving the notice, the respondent No. 3 has provided a 3 (three) months’ notice for relocation of Sagalee Branch- APRB, which has been currently operating from the first floor of the petitioner’s RCC building. By the impugned notice, it has been informed to the petitioner that the APRB authorities have decided to shift their operation to a new location due to lack of parking space at its current location. Another reason cited is that relocation is necessitated for branch expansion. It is mentioned that current location has been affecting the operation of the Sagalee Branch. The petitioner has been requested to inform about the necessary procedure for vacating the premises including any inspection or formalities required on the part of the respondent-APRB authorities and the petitioner has also been requested to extend his co-operation and support throughout the tenure. 8. The terms and conditions of the Lease Agreement dated 11.05.2020 (Annexure-A) have been perused. It is relevant to refer Clause-2 (a) of the Lease Agreement. 8. The terms and conditions of the Lease Agreement dated 11.05.2020 (Annexure-A) have been perused. It is relevant to refer Clause-2 (a) of the Lease Agreement. For ready reference, Clause-2(a) of the Lease Agreement is extracted hereinbelow:- “(2) The first party shall on completion of the construction, repairs and renovations of the said premises, put the Second party in possession of the said premises and execute a lease of the said premises in favour of the Second party on the following terms and conditions:- (a) The lease shall be for a period of 10 years certain with an option to the Second party to continue the lease thereafter for a further period of 10 years. The Second party shall, however, have the liberty to vacate the premises or a part thereof at any time during the period of lease by giving 3 months’ notice in writing”. 9. The petitioner has alleged that there was misappropriation of different amount of money from two bank accounts maintained at the Sagalee Branch by certain officials of the APRB with criminal intention. In that connection, the petitioner had lodged an FIR before the Officer-in- Charge, Sagalee Police Station and the said FIR was registered as Sagalee P.S. Case no. 28/2023 under Sections 420/409/34, the Indian Penal Code and was investigated into. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that after completion of the investigation, the Investigating Officer has already submitted a charge-sheet finding a prima-facie case against the former Branch Manager, Sagalee Branch, APRB. 10. Mr. Taba, learned Standing counsel for the APRB has referred to the statement made in Paragraph-8 of the writ petition to submit that the entire amount, alleged to have been misappropriated, had already been deposited in the concerned bank accounts on 01.09.2023. In any view of the matter, the APRB is not vicariously liable for the act any of its former officials. 11. Reverting back to the facts of the case, it is found that Clause-2 (a) has provided an option to the 2nd party to the said Lease Agreement i.e. the respondent No. 3 to vacate the said lease premises or part thereof at any time during the period of the lease by giving 3 months notice in writing. The impugned notice dated 14.02.2025 has provided for 3 months notice. The impugned notice dated 14.02.2025 has provided for 3 months notice. Prima-facie, the impugned notice dated 14.02.2025 is in conformity with the provision contained in Clause-2(a) of the Lease Agreement. 12. The Lease Agreement dated 11.05.2020 entered into by the petitioner with the respondent No. 3 is in the realm of a private law and the disputes raised by the petitioner herein, does not raise any issue of public law. Disputes arising out of the terms of such contract or alleged breaches have to be settled by ordinary principles of law of contract. The terms and conditions of a private agreement cannot be enforced in a writ petition instituted under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Having regard to the settled position that a writ petition is maintainable in case of only public remedy not in case of private wrong, the instant writ petition is found to be one, which is not to be entertained. Therefore, this writ petition is not entertained and is dismissed. There shall, however, no order as to costs. 13. It is, however, observed that insofar as the petitioner’s allegation regarding misappropriation of money from his bank accounts is concerned, the petitioner is not precluded to take recourse to appropriate remedy permissible to him under the law.