- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:16213 WP No. 112262 of 2020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA WRIT PETITION NO. 112262 OF 2020 (GM-RES) BETWEEN: SRI. HATELSAB S/O. DASTAGIRSAB KOLHAR AGED: 68 YEARS, OCC: RETD. GOVT. SERVANT, R/O. KOLHAR PLAZA, KRISHNAGIRI COLONY, ANAND NAGAR MAIN ROAD, HUBBALLI-580024, DISTRICT: DHARWAD. …PETITIONER (SRI. HATELSAB S/O. DASTAGIRSAB KOLHAR-PARTY IN PERSON) AND: 1. STATE BANK OF INDIA BY ITS REGIONAL MANAGER, SBI ZONAL OFFICE, T. S. COMPLEX, SOLAPUR ROAD, HUBBALLI-580023, DISTRICT: DHARWAD 2. STATE BANK OF INDIA BY ITS ASSISTANT MANAGER SMALL AND MEDIUM ENTERRPISES CITY CREDIT CENTRE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE, T. S. COMPLEX, SHOLAPUR ROAD, Digitally signed by RAKESH S HARIHAR Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench, Dharwad - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:16213 WP No. 112262 of 2020 KESHWAPUR, HUBBALLI-580023, DISTRICT: DHARWAD 3. STATE BANK OF INDIA ANAND NAGAR BRANCH, BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER NO.81/B, KRISHNAGIRI COLONY, 80 FEET ROAD, ANAND NAGAR, HUBBALLI-580024, DISTRICT: DHARWAD. 4. STATE BANK OF INDIA SIDDARUDH NAGAR BRANCH, BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER, NEAR SIDDARUDH MATH, OLD HUBBALLI, HUBBALLI-580024, DISTRICT: DHARWAD. 5. STATE BANK OF INDIA BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER, (PRINCIPAL NODAL OFFICER) STATE BANK BHAVAN, 11TH FLOOR, MADAM CAMA ROAD, MUMBAI-400021. 6. STATE BANK OF INDIA HEAD OFFICE KARNATAKA BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER, SAINT MARKS ROAD, SHANTHALA NAGAR, SAMPANGI RAMA ROAD, BENGALURU-560001. 7. UNION OF INDIA REP. BY JOINT SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF FINANCIAL SERVICES, MINISTRY OF FINANCE, - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:16213 WP No. 112262 of 2020 3RD FLOOR, JEEVAN DEEP BUILDING, SANSAD MARG, NEW DELHI-110001. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. K.L. PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R6; SRI. M.B. KANAVI, CGSC FOR R7) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO: 1. ISSUE ANY APPROPRIATE ORDER OR ANY APPROPRIATE DIRECTION OR WRIT OF MANDAMUS DIRECTING THE RESPONDENT NO1 TO 6, TO COMPLETE THE TENDER PROCESS ISSUED IN KANNADA DAILY PRAJAWANI DATED 25.05.2019 VIDE ANNEXURE- P-11. 2. ISSUE ANY APPROPRIATE ORDER OR ANY APPROPRIATE DIRECTION OR WRIT OF MANDAMUS DIRECTING THE RESPONDENT NO.1 TO 6 RESPONDENT BANK TO SETTLE THE LOAN ACCOUNT UNDER ONE TIME SETTLEMENT AS PER REPRESENTATION DATED 23102018 AT ANNEXURE-P. 3. ISSUE ANY APPROPRIATE ORDER OR ANY APPROPRIATE DIRECTION OR WRIT OF MANDAMUS DIRECTING THE RESPONDENT NO.1 TO 6, TO ALLOW PETITIONER TO SELL PROPERTY AND MAKE GOOD THE LOAN PAYMENT TO MEET THE ENDS OF JUSTICE. THIS WRIT PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:16213 WP No. 112262 of 2020 ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA) 1. The petitioner is before this Court seeking the following prayer: a. “Issue any appropriate order or any appropriate direction or writ of Mandamus directing the Respondent No1 to 6, to complete the tender process issued in kannada daily prajawani dated 25.05.2019 vide ANNEXURE- P-11 b. Issue any appropriate order or any appropriate direction or writ of Mandamus directing the Respondent No.1 to 6 Respondent Bank to settle the loan account under one time settlement as per representation dated 23102018 at ANNEXURE-P. c. Issue any appropriate order or any appropriate direction or writ of Mandamus directing the Respondent No.1 to 6, to allow petitioner to sell property and make good the loan payment to meet the ends of justice.” 2. The petitioner is the owner of a property in which the State Bank of India had put up its branch as a lessee. The petitioner was earlier before this Court in Writ Petition No.101062/2018. The Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, on the very same submissions that are now projected in the present petition, had answered the matter by the following order: - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:16213 WP No. 112262 of 2020 “In this Writ Petition, the petitioner has laid a challenge to the letter bearing No.Misc/33/2017-18 dated 11.01 .2018, at Annexure ‘Q’ to the Writ Petition whereby the 3r d respondent/Bank has in effect terminated a contract of lease incorporated in the registered instruments dated 03/04.12 .2013 and 10.07.2014. 2. 2. Brief facts stated are that: (i) Respondent No.3 Bank is an instrumentality of the State as defined under Article 12 of the Constitution o f India, having been established under the provisions of the State Bank of India Act, 1955; it had entered into leases duly executed and registered on 04.12 .2013 and 10.07 .2014 for a stipulated tenure of ten years. The respondent/Bank vide its impugned letter dated 11.01.2018 at Annexure ‘Q’ has terminated the said arrangement unilaterally; this action o f the respondent/Bank is un just, arbitrary and illegal, inasmuch as the petitioner has invested hug e sums of money borrowed from the very same Bank under the MSME Scheme as an industry. (ii) After notice, the 3r d respondent entered appearance and filed its detailed objections dated 06.04.2018, resisted the writ petition on various grounds. It has also denied the petition averments except the lease in question. It also contends that the lease is a matter o f contract governed by the provisions of Transfer of Property Act and that the termination o f the lease again is a matter of contract only; there is no scope for invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction vested under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution of India. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:16213 WP No. 112262 of 2020 3. I have care fully considered the rival contentions at the Bar. The registered lease dated 03.12.2013 is purely a matter of contract between the parties. Paragraph 5(h) o f the said lease reads: “5(h) That the Lessee shall have further option of terminating the lease hereby granted at any time during the tenancy thereo f on giving the Lessor three calendar month’s previous notice in writing.” 4. Thus, in exercise of right reserved to the lessee, this Lease has been terminated with three months notice as stipulated in the said paragraph. If it is an illegal termination, the grievance o f the petitioner has to be worked out in a regularly constituted civil suit and not a writ petition. 5. 5. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the 3r d respondent/Bank is established under a Parliamentary enactment and there fore, it answers description of “State” as defined under Article 12 of the Constitution of India as meant by the Apex Court in the case o f RAMANA DAYARAM SHETTY Vs. THE INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT AUTHORITY OF INDIA AND OTHERS, AIR 1979 SC 1628, and there fore, all actions o f the instrumentality of State are pregnant with public law element is misconceived 6. The Apex Court in the case of LIC of INDIA Vs. ESCORTS LIMITED AND OTHERS, AIR 1986 SC 1370, has held as under: “While it cannot be doubted that every action of the State or an instrumentality o f the State must be informed by reason and that, in - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:16213 WP No. 112262 of 2020 appropriate cases, actions uninformed by reason may be questioned as arbitrary in proceedings under Art.226 or Art.32 of the Constitution. Art.14 cannot be construed as a charter for judicial review of State actions in its manifold activities by stating reasons for such actions. For example, if the action of the State is political or sovereign in character , the court will keep away from it. The Court will not debate academic matters or concern itself with the intricacies of trade and commerce . If the action o f the State is related to contractual obligations or obligations arising out of the tort, the Court may not ordinarily examine it unless the action has some public law character attached to it. Broadly speaking, the court will examine actions of State if they pertain to the public law domain and refrain from examining them if they pertain to the private law field.” 6A. The above legal position apart, the question whether the termination of lease is good or bad in law and if bad, what remedy is to be provided require oral and documentary evidence and thus, the trial in a full fledged way becomes inevitable. Ordinarily such disputed facts are not adjudicated in extraordinary jurisdiction under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution, when the aggrieved has an alternative and efficacious remedy of suit. Petitioner is at liberty to avail the said remedy. 7. Therefore, the petition is benefit ft of merits and consequently is dismissed. However, the dismissal o f the Writ Petition will not come in the way of petitioner - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:16213 WP No. 112262 of 2020 seeking rescheduling of the loan transaction with the 3r d respondent Bank in accordance with law . 8. The Bank may consider the hardship occasioned by the abrupt termination o f the leases in question.” 3. The petitioner, appearing in person, would contend that the Bank, which had taken the premises on lease, has not vacated the premises at all. 4. Learned counsel Sri K.L. Patil submits that the Bank had long ago, in the year 2018 itself, vacated the premises, and the petitioner has sold the premises even after such vacation. 5. As observed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, these are seriously disputed questions of fact, which cannot be thrashed out in a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, reserving liberty to the petitioner to knock at the doors of the appropriate forum, the petition stands disposed of. Sd/- (M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE AC CT:ANB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 162