1` IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR Writ Petition No.315/06 Sou. Smita w/o Arun Kashikar vs. Deputy Director of Education, Old Morris College Compound, Near Patwardhan High School, Sitabuldi, Nagpur and another. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's or directions and Registrar's orders. Orders. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- CORAM : A.P. Lavande & R.V.More,JJ DATE : 14.9.2007 Heard Mr. P.S.Sadavarte, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mrs. Joshi, learned A.G.P. for respondent no.1. 2. By this petition the petitioner seeks direction against the respondent no.1 for payment of rent and municipal taxes for the period 1.4.1986 onwards in respect of the School Building belonging to the petitioner which was taken on rent by respondent no.2 from the petitioner. The petitioner further seeks a direction against the respondent no.1 to release unpaid 100% non-salary grant to respondent no.2 for the payment of rent and municipal taxes. 3. The petitioner filed Civil Suit No. 87/97 before the Civil Judge, Sr. Dn. Wardha against the respondents herein for recovery of rents and municipal taxes for the period 1.4.1986 to 31.3.1997 with interest thereon on the ground that the rents in respect of the premises leased to 2` respondent no.2 by the petitioner were not paid for the above mentioned period. The learned Judge granted a decree against the respondent no.2 herein and dismissed the suit against the respondent no.1 on the ground that there was no privity of contract between the petitioner and respondent no.1. 4. The petitioner has filed the present petition seeking the relief refused by the Civil Court on the ground that the respondent no.1 is liable to pay rents to respondent no.2 for being paid to the petitioner. According to Mr. Sadavarte, the respondent no.1 is bound to release non- salary grant to respondent no.2 in order to enable the respondent no.2 to pay rents to the petitioner. Mr. Sadavarte, submitted that since respondent no.1 is bound to release non-salary grant to respondent no.2 the petitioner is entitled to file the present petition so that respondent no.2 would be in position to pay the rents due to the petitioner in terms of the decree passed by the Civil Court. In support of his submissions, Mr. Sadavarte relied upon the Judgment delivered by the learned Single Judge of this Court in Mangala vs. Shreyas Shikshan Prasaak Mandal, 1998(3) Mh. L.J. 384. 5. Per contra, Mrs. Joshi, learned A.G.P. submitted that there is no privity of contract between the petitioner 3` and respondent no.1. According to Mrs. Joshi, there is absolutely no cause of action in favour of the petitioner to file present petition and this is not a case in which this court should exercise extra ordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to grant reliefs prayed for by the petitioner. 6. Having considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.G.P. and having perused the records we find no merit in the present petition. It is pertinent to note that the petitioner had filed the suit against both the respondents and that the trial court decreed the suit only against respondent no.2. The said decree has become final. Moreover, in our considered opinion, the petitioner has absolutely no cause of action to file the present petition to seek reliefs prayed for against the respondent no.1 in the petition. We are unable to accept the submission of Mr. Sadavarte that alleged failure on the part of the respondent no.1 to release non-salary grant in favour of respondent no.2 gives any cause of action to the petitioner to file present petition so as to enable the petitioner to get the decree passed against respondent no.2 satisfied. The Judgment relied upon by the petitioner is of no help to the petitioner since the facts therein are entirely different. In our opinion, the present petition is misconceived and not maintainable. Therefore, the petition 4` is dismissed. Judge Judge patle