JUDGMENT

W.P.(C) 10289/2022 & CM APPLs. 29659/2022, 33225/2023

1. The Petitioner has approached this Court for the following reliefs:-

“

A) Issue a writ or pass any order, direction requiring the Respondent to consider the bid/offer of the Petitioner in response to the advertisement in a reasonable fair and just manner which was rejected/counted out arbitrarily with malafide intention and extraneous consideration to favour the Respondent no. 4. As a result of which the Petitioner has been subjected to discrimination and his right to equality has been violated.

B) Pass appropriate writ or direction to the Respondent to consider the proposal of the Petitioner along with other bidders regarding alternative accommodation for Bank premises, published to be required by the Respondent in the same area.

C) Pass any other or further order as may be deem fit and proper in the fact and circumstances of the case.

D) Award cost on the writ petition.”

2. The Petitioner has approached this Court seeking for a direction to the Respondent/State Bank of India to consider the bid offer of the Petitioner which has been given in response to an advertisement dated 13.04.2018 issued by the Respondent/Bank regarding hiring of commercial premises on rent in Karawal Nagar, Delhi within the radius of one kilometre from the existing branch and also for premises at Gandhi Nagar, Delhi which should be within a radius of 500 metres from the existing branch of SBI.

3. The case set up by the Petitioner is that State Bank of India was running its branch from a premises belonging to the Petitioner for about 40 years. The initial lease deed was executed in the year 1981 and was being extended from time to time and the last extension was in the year 2018 for a period of 15 years with the condition that the first five years would be treated as a lock in period.

4. It is stated that the Petitioner spent about Rs.70 lakhs on the renovation/reconstruction of the premises in the year 2000 at the request of the Bank to suit their needs and requirements. It is stated that during the period of renovation/construction, the Petitioner had arranged for an alternate premises for the Bank so that it could function smoothly and the rent for the same was being paid by the Petitioner.

5. After the Petitioner came to know that the Respondent/Bank has issued an advertisement on 13.04.2018 for taking on rent two premises near the existing branch, the Petitioner offered two of his properties in the Karawal Nagar which would be in close vicinity of the existing branch.

6. It is stated in the writ petition that the Respondent had given a notice to the Petitioner on 19.09.2020 for de-hiring of the existing premises stating that they will vacate the premises by 20.03.2021. It is stated by the Petitioner that the said notice is in contravention with the lease deed wherein there is a lock in period of five years.

7. Material on record indicates that the Petitioner approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) 11124/2021 challenging the action of the Respondent, claiming damages and rent from the Respondent. The Petitioner withdrew the said writ petition with liberty to institute appropriate civil liberties.

8. It is stated in the writ petition that in reply to an RTI application, the Petitioner came to know that there are 10 bidders in the bidding process and the bid of the Petitioner has not even been considered. The Petitioner states that the bidding was not transparent.

9. Reply has been filed by the Respondent/Bank contending that the challenge to the advertisement dated 13.04.2018 and the tendering process is belated. It is stated that the Respondent/Bank had already given a letter dated 19.09.2020 informing that the Respondent/Bank shall vacate the premises by 20.03.2021.

10. It is stated that the entire issue regarding vacation of the premises, the tendering process etc. were all part of a challenge raised in W.P.(C) 11124/2021 which has been withdrawn by the Petitioner on 08.10.2021 and the second wr