IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2019 BEFORE THE HON' BLE MR. JUSTICE B. VEERAPPA WRIT PETITION No.16261/2015(GM-RES) BETWEEN:
SRI K.B.LOKESH S/O K.B.BASAVARAJU AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS R/O NO.116/1, MAIN ROAD KORATAGERE, TUMKUR DISTRICT – 572 129 ... PETITIONER (By SRI M.R.RAJAGOPAL, ADVOCATE) AND:
THE REGIONAL MANAGER STATE BANK OF INDIA REGION-I, ZONE-II NO.91/1, INFANTRY ROAD SHIVAJINAGAR BENGALURU – 560 001 ... RESPONDENT (BY SRI A.RAVISHANKAR, ADVOCATE) …… THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED COMMUNICATION OF THE RESPONDENT BANK DATED 05.03.2015 VIDE ANNEXURE- L AND ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER The petitioner in the above writ petition has sought for a writ of certiorari to quash the communication of the respondent Bank dated 05.03.2015, vide Annexure-L and to direct the respondent Bank to act in terms of the Consent Letter of Lease dated 15.10.2014, vide Annexure-F and complete the process of lease in relation to the property in question.
2. It is the case of the petitioner that he is the absolute owner of the property bearing No.418/383/B measuring 67 x 148 ½ feet and 128 x 38 feet, totally measuring 1413.5 sq.ft. situated at Koratagere Town which was vacant site at one point of time and same was assessed by Koratagere Town Panchayath. In the year 2014, the respondent/State Bank of India issued an advertisement in the newspaper stating that they require buildings to start new branches in various places of Tumakuru District including Koratagere town and requested the interested owners to submit applications. Accordingly, on 15.10.2014, petitioner submitted his consent letter to the respondent bank consenting to construct and lease the premises in favour of the bank as per the Bank’s specifications and also obtained licence and sanction plan from the local authority in this regard. After inspecting the site and after satisfied that the location of the site of the petitioner is suitable, the respondent bank also gave its consent to proceed. On 16.10.2014, petitioner obtained No Objection Certificate from Karnataka Bank Limited, Koratagere, from which bank he availed credit facilities against his property, to the effect that the said bank has no objections for letting out the premises to the respondent bank. The petitioner also obtained NOC from the local authority for taking electricity connection to the building and further, purchased Godrej Cash Locker and other materials for fixing in the Strong Room as per the specifications of the respondent bank. Thereafter, on 18.02.2015, petitioner gave a representation to the respondent bank informing that the building is completed and requested to take possession of the first floor of the building and to start paying rent from 01.12.2014. Very strangely, the respondent bank issued the impugned communication to the petitioner declining to take possession of the first floor of the building on the ground that the petitioner has let out the ground floor premises to the Corporation Bank. Therefore, petitioner is before this Court.
3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties to the lis.
4. Sri M.R.Rajagopal, learned counsel for the petitioner contended with vehemence that the impugned communication vide Annexure-L issued by the respondent Bank is illegal and against the principles of law and liable to be quashed. He contended that after taking consent from the respondent Bank, petitioner has spent large amount of money for obtaining plan approval, construction of the building and for purchase of Godrej Cash locker and other material to be fixed in the strong room as per the specifications of the respondent bank. Without complying with the terms and conditions agreed between the parties, the respondent issued the impugned communication vide Annexure-L, in violation of the principles of natural justice and the same cannot be sustained. The respondent bank is bound by the consent letter of lease and therefore, sought to allow the writ petition.
5. Per contra, Sri A. Ravishankar, learned counsel for the respondent bank sought to justify the impugned Annexure-L and contended that the bank agreed to take the premises of the petitioner on lease and consent was given to that effect. But, the bank was shocked to notice that the petitioner had let out the ground floor to the Corporation Bank, which leads to unhealthy competition between two nationalized banks. Therefore, the respondent is not inclined to proceed to take the first floor of the premises on lease. Therefore, he sought to dismiss the writ petition.
6. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, it is clear from the averments made in the memorandum of writ petition that the petitioner has spent large amount of money to get the sanctioned plan, construction of building and for purchase of Godrej Cash Locker etc and it is not open for the respondent bank to go back from the consent letter.
7. Be that as it may, this Court, cannot decide as to whether there was a consent letter of lease deed executed between the parties, since the said document is denied by the respondent. Therefore, it is for the petitioner to approach the competent Court seeking damages, if any, in accordance with law.
8. In view of the above, writ petition cannot be entertained. Accordingly, writ petition is disposed off with liberty to the petitioner to approach the competent Court of law, if so desired in accordance with law.
Sd/- JUDGE kcm