THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA WRIT PETITION No.1420 of 2015

ORDER

Petitioner-M/s Terabeam Proxim Wireless Private Limited, is a company registered under the Companies Act, 1956, with registered office in 1^st respondent-National Academy of Construction (NAC) Campus. It is the specific case of the petitioner that it has taken the premises on lease from the 1^st respondent on 08.07.2013 for a period of six years commencing 19.07.2013 to 18.07.2019 and it has to pay monthly rent of Rs.3,54,669.86/- to the 1^st respondent. It is the grievance of the petitioner that on the alleged wrong advice of 4^th respondent-Deputy Director (Administration), State of Andhra Pradesh, NAC Campus, the petitioner had erroneously paid Rs.3,98,420/- as rent for the month of December 2014 to the 2^nd respondent-Director General, NAC, State of Andhra Pradesh, and the 2^nd respondent vide letter dated 11.12.2014 confirmed the receipt of payment and further directed to remit the monthly rents to the State of Andhra Pradesh as per A.P. Re-organization Act, 2014, and the 3^rd respondent- Director General, NAC, Telangana, issued letter dated 31.12.2014 directing to ignore all the letters from the Andhra Pradesh and pay rents to the State of Telangana.

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, and learned counsel for respondents. Perused the record.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner made submissions on the lines of writ affidavit, and relied on the judgment in Harbanslal Sahnia v. Indian Oil Corporation, [(2003) 2 SCC 107], and Hemant Tyagi v. UCO Bank², to contend that this Court has jurisdiction to decide the dispute, and that an alternative remedy is not a bar for this Court to exercise writ jurisdiction. He draws the attention of the Court to paragraph Nos.16 and 17 of Hemant Tyagi (supra), which read as follows:

“16. Before parting with this judgment, I may note that a preliminary objection has been raised, in the counter affidavit of the Bank, regarding the territorial jurisdiction of this Court to entertain the present proceedings. I am of the view that, in view of Article 226(2) of the Constitution of India, there can be no dispute regarding the maintainability of this writ petition before this Court, as the petitioner resides at Delhi, the execution of the bond took place at Delhi, and the enforcement of the bond, qua the petitioner, also took place at Delhi. As such, to say the least, a substantial part of the cause of action arose within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court. This objection of the respondent, too, therefore, fails.

17. Resultantly, for the reasons aforestated, this writ petition succeeds and is allowed. The respondents are directed to refund, to the petitioner, the bond amount of 2 lakhs paid by the petitioner to the respondent within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt by the respondent of the certified copy of this judgment.”

4. Learned Government Pleader, on the basis of counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondent Nos.2 and 4 would submit that the judgments relied on by the petitioner are not applicable to this case. He submits that the 1^st respondent is a Society registered under the A.P. (Telangana) Public Societies Registration Act,

2 W.P (C) No.8500 of 2016 (High Court of Delhi)

1350 Fasli on 24.09.1998, and the 1^st respondent is not a State or its instrumentality under Article 12 of the Constitution, and therefore a writ petition is not maintainable. Learned Government Pleader contends that the petitioner essentially seeks refund of Rs.3,98,420/- that it paid as rent for the subject premises in December 2014 to the State of Andhra Pradesh i.e., after bifurcation of the composite State of Andhra Pradesh under the A.P. Reorganisation Act, 2014, on an alleged wrong advice of the 4^th respondent.

5. Having considered the respective submissions, and perusing the record, it may be noted that the grievance of the petitioner is that it paid an amount of Rs.3,98,420/- as rent for December 2014 for the premises