Surinder Singh Nijjar, Chief Justice and Pinaki Chandra Ghose, J. - (1.) We have heard learned Counsel for the parties. We have also perused the order passed by the learned Trial Court. A perusal of the order shows that earlier also the present writ petitioner had filed a Writ Petition No. 2130 of 2003. In the aforesaid writ petition the petitioner claimed the identical reliefs as contained in the present writ petition. The aforesaid writ petition was dismissed on 17.11.2003 by the learned Single Judge by passing the following order: "The Court: In my view, the writ application is not maintainable. The bank is a premises tenant under the petitioner. It is alleged that the bank is not complying with the terms of the agreement; only because the tenant is an authority within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India, it cannot be said that a writ application is maintainable by the landlord against the tenant for enforcement of the tenancy agreement. If the petitioner has any grievance, he can approach before the appropriate forum in accordance with law. It is not possible for me sitting in a Writ Court to adjudicate whether the terms contained in the agreement entered into by and between the landlord and the tenant have been violated by the tenant or not. It is not possible for me to embark upon investigation on such disputed questions. The writ application is, thus, dismissed. However, rejection of this application will not prevent the petitioner to initiate appropriate proceedings before the appropriate forum in accordance with law. No costs."
(2.) Although specific opportunity had been granted to the appellant to initiate proceedings before the appropriate forum in accordance with law, no such proceedings were, in fact, initiated. However, the present writ petition being Writ Petition No. 915 of 2007 was again filed in this Court. When the matter came up for hearing before the trial Court, the writ petition had been dismissed on 1511 April, 2008 with the following observations: "A comparative study of the reliefs claimed in the earlier writ petition and in the present writ petition, as extracted above, would clearly reveal that though its form is different but in substance they are the same. It would appear from a bare perusal of the order passed on 1711 November, 2003 that the Court was of the clear view that terms and conditions of a tenancy agreement cannot be enforced by a Court of Writ even if one of the parties to the agreement is an Article 12 authority. What was denied to the petitioner on the earlier occasion has been sought to be reagitated before this Court four years after the dismissal of the earlier petition. In the further considered view of this Court, learned Counsel for the bank is correct in his submission that the present petition is barred by res judicata. Although this Court has noted with some anguish that the impugned action of the respondent bank if tested on the touchstone of fairness and non-arbitrariness may not succeed, but having regard to the earlier order of this Court no relief can be granted to the petitioners on this petition. The writ petition stands dismissed with liberty to the petitioners to pursue their channel of civil litigation."
(3.) Hence the present appeal. Learned Counsel for the appellant submits that in view of the ratio of law laid down in the case of B.L. Chakraborty v. State of West Bengal & Ors., reported in 2005 (12) SCC 148 it can no longer be held that the writ petition in the present case would not be maintainable.;