JUDGMENT :

J.B.PARDIWALA , J.

1. By this writ application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the writ applicant has prayed for the following reliefs;

“(A) Your Lordships may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus and/or any other appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing by quashing and setting aside the notice dated 19.02.2019 (Annexure K) issued by the respondent No.2 as same being arbitrary and illegal and further be pleased to direct the respondent No.2 to waive the amount of penalty imposed upon the petitioner arbtrarily.

(B) Your Lordships may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus and/or any other appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing by quashing and setting aside the proceedings pending before respondent no.3 being case no.ARE/1/ETR/575/2020;

(C) Pending hearing, admission and final hearing of the matter, Your Lordships may be pleased to direct the respondent no.3 to stay the proceedings pending before respondent no.3 being case no.ARE/1/ETR/575/2020

(D) Pending hearing, admission and final hearing of the matter, Your Lordships may be pleased to direct the respondent no.3 to stay the implementation and execution of notice dated 19.02.2020 and notice dated 31.07.2020.”

2. The first order that came to be passed in the present matter while issuing notice is dated 27.01.2021. The same reads thus;

“Heard Mr. Zubin F. Bharda, learned advocate for Mr. Dhruvik K. Patel for the petitioner and Mr. Tirthraj Pandya, learned Assistant Government Pleader for the State Government authorities on advance copy.

On condition that the petitioner shall deposit an amount of Rs.30,00,000/ (Rupees thirty lacs only) with the respondent no.3–District Collector, Ahmedabad within a period of 10 days, NOTICE returnable on 9.2.2021.”

3. Thereafter, this Bench heard this matter at length and passed the following order on 25.11.2021;

“1) We have heard Mr.Zubin Bharda, the learned counsel with Mr.Dhruvik K. Patel, the learned advocate for the writ applicant and Mr. Ishan Joshi, the learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-State.

2) The State seeks to recover an amount of approximately Rs.1,00,00,000/- (Rupees One Crore) from the writ applicant towards arrears of rent. It appears from the materials on record that the writ applicant entered into a contract with the Civil Hospital, Ahmedabad to run a chemist shop at the premises of Civil Hospital. After running the chemist shop for some time disputes arose between the writ applicant and the State. The contract ultimately came to be terminated. According to the State, since the huge amount had to be recovered towards arrears of rent, it first issued the notice calling upon the writ applicant to make the payment. Failing which, the requisite amount due and payable would be recovered by way of land revenue measures.

3) We also take notice of the fact that the security deposit has also been forfeited. It is also not in dispute that the agreement between the parties provides that under the contract, if any sum of money is recoverable from the Contractor and payable by the Contractor to the Medical Superintendent, Civil Hospital, Ahmedabad, the Officer empowered shall be entitled to recover such sum by appropriating in part or whole, the Security Deposit paid by the Contractor and at the end of it, if a security being insufficient then the balance of the total sum recoverable, as the case may be deducted from the sum due to the contractor under the existing contract or any other contract and the balance amount would be recovered as arrears of “ land revenue dues”.

4) It goes without saying that once the parties enter into a contract and the Contractor accepts the conditions as stipulated in the agreement, the same would be binding to the contract. However, a question of law arises in the present litigation. The question is whether any amount, which is sought to be recovered under a contractual relationship between th