Chandra Shekhar Mishra vs Chhattisgarh Rajya Gramin Bank
2021 Latest Caselaw 2067 Chatt

                                 1
                                                 WA No. 246 of 2021

                                                              NAFR

          HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

                         WA No. 246 of 2021

    Chandra Shekhar Mishra S/o Late Shri Lakhan Lal Mishra, Aged
     About 58 Years R/o Ward No. 2, Post Rajim District Gariyaband
     Chhattisgarh

                                                      ---- Petitioner

                              Versus

   1. Chhattisgarh Rajya Gramin Bank Through The Managing
      Director (Administration), Principle Office, Mahadevghat Road,
      Sundar Nagar Raipur Chhattisgarh

   2. The Branch Manager, Chhattisgarh Rajya Gramin Bank Ward No.
      2, Post Rajim, District Gariyaband Chhattisgarh

                                                    ---- Respondent




For Appellant                  Mr. Vipin Tiwari, Advocate




               Proceedings through Video Conferencing

   DB.:             Hon'ble Mr. Prashant Kumar Mishra, Ag. C.J &

                    Hon'ble Mrs. Rajani Dubey, J.

Judgment on Board by Prashant Kumar Mishra, Ag. C.J.

31/8/2021

1. Heard.

2. The writ petition was preferred for seeking a direction to CG

Rajya Gramin Bank to comply with the terms of tenancy

agreement on the ground that the respondent Bank is a 'State'

WA No. 246 of 2021

within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the writ petition

was maintainable and the respondent Bank cannot be

permitted to do illegal things.

4. Having heard learned counsel for the appellant, we are not

impressed with the arguments, inasmuch as, the impugned

action of the respondent-Bank is not any such action, which the

respondent Bank was obliged to perform under any statutory

rule.

5. It was purely a contractual agreement between the parties. It is

a case, the remedy of which lies in Civil Court or any Statutory

Tribunal, which has been created for enforcement of rights of

landlord/tenant.

6. Accordingly, while refusing to interfere, we observe that if the

appellant moves before the jurisdictional Civil Court or Rent

Controller for enforcement of his right flowing under the

contract within a period of one month from today, the said

Tribunal shall decide the application in accordance with law

expeditiously preferably within a period of 6 months.

7. The appeal is disposed of.

                      Sd/-                                         Sd/-

           ( Prashant Kumar Mishra)                          (Rajani Dubey)
             Acting Chief Justice                                 Judge


Shyna