Kiran Kumari v. The Union Of India
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.12909 of 2022 ====================================================== Kiran Kumari, D/o Rajendra Prasad Singh W/o Sunil Kumar, resident of village - Bagha Ward No. 29, P.S.- Begusarai Town, District - Begusarai. ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1.
The Union of India through Chairman Central Board of Indirect Tax and Custom, North Block, Central Secretariat, Government of India, New Delhi. 2.
Commissioner, Central Goods and Services Tax, Government of India, Patna - 11, 3rd Floor, CTTC, Building, Sanchar Parishar, Budh Marg, Patna - 800001, Bihar.
3.
Additional Commissioner, Central Goods and Services Tax, Central GST Office, Patna, Bihar.
4.
The Deputy Commissioner, Central Goods and Services Tax, Central GST and Central Excise Division, Begusarai, District - Begusarai, Bihar. 5.
Assistant Commissioner, Central Goods and Services Tax, Central GST, Central Excise Division, Begusarai, District - Begusarai, Bihar. ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr. Suraj Kumar, Advocate Mr. Nakul Kumar Jamuar, Advocate For the Respondent/s :
Dr. K.N.Singh, A.S.G.
Mr. Kumar Priya Ranjan, CGC.
====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S. KUMAR ORAL JUDGMENT (Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE) (The proceedings of the Court are being conducted by Hon'ble the Chief Justice/Hon'ble Judges through Video Conferencing from their residential offices/residences. Also the Advocates and the Staffs joined the proceedings through Video Conferencing from their residences/offices.) Date : 09-09-2022 Heard learned counsel for the parties.
Petitioner has prayed for the following relief(s):-
2/5
3/5
4/5 The petitioner had let out the premises to the respondent for housing the office of the Central Goods and Service Tax. Vide notice dated 25th July 2022 (Annexure-3, Page 34), the petitioner was informed that the respondent would be vacating the premises and handing over the vacant possession on or before 31st of August,2022. There is no dispute with regard to the tenancy subsisting in terms of lease agreement dated 16.11.2018.
The respondents, in order to house their office, issued a tender dated 04.10.2022 inviting offers from different landlords. It is the petitioner's grievance that the respondents did not consider the petitioner's offer.
Well, it is not so, the offer was considered, but the respondents chose a better location, may be at a higher rate. As such, it cannot be said that the petitioner stands unfairly discriminated or that the action of the respondents is irrational, illogical or not in terms of the commercial prevalent practice.
5/5 There is nothing on record to establish that the rent offered by the successful tenderer for which respondent has finalised the bid, is far in excess than the prevalent market rate. The choice for housing an office is solely the discretion of the tenant and cannot be that of the landlord.
Equally, no mandamus can be issued to the tenant to take on rent the premises of any particular landlord. As such, present petition, devoid of merit, is dismissed.
Interlocutory application, if any, shall also stand disposed of.
(Sanjay Karol, CJ) ( S. Kumar, J) Sujit/Ashwini AFR/NAFR CAV DATE Uploading Date 14.09.2022 Transmission Date