KULBHUSHAN KUMAR Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this case a preliminary objection was taken up by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State that the present writ is not maintainable and in support of her contention, the learned counsel for the State relies upon an order dated 24.4.1986, passed by the Hon'ble Division Bench in Civil Writ Petition No. 6040 of 1985, which reads as under:

(2.) The State took the objections that the Committee had decided to increase the rent in accordance with the instructions issued by the State Government for which it was competent to do so and it was in accordance with the terms and conditions of the contract entered into between the parties and, therefore, with regard to the enforcement of a contract the writ is not maintainable. This objection of the State found favour with the Hon'ble Division Bench, as a result of which, the writ of Shri Avtar Sin aforesaid was dismissed.

(3.) In the present case also, the challenge has been given by the petitioner to Annexures P-1 and P-2. Annexure P-1 is equivalent to Annexure P-2 of Avtar Singh's case (supra) and Annexure P-1 is a decision of the State Government conveying to the various Municipal Committees of the State of Punjab for the increase of the rent after the expiry of three years. The objection taken up by the State is on the same line as in the case of Shri Avtar Singh (C.W.P. No. 6040 of 1985). The decision of the Hon'ble Division Bench is to prevail and in these circumstances, the present writ is hereby dismissed as not maintainable with the observation that it will be always open to the petitioner to file a civil suit in the Court of competent jurisdiction against the State or the Committee. No order as to costs.