The Commissioner, Water Resources Minor Irrigation Department v. Bihar Patna
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Letters Patent Appeal No.1127 of 2010 In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 6323 of 2009 ====================================================== Ram Sagar Pathak, son of Late Srikant Pathak resident of village-Mathar, P.S. Nayagaon, Begusarai .... .... Appellant/s 1. The State Of Bihar through District Magistrate, Begusarai 2. The Deputy Development Commissioner, Begusarai, 3. The Commissioner, Water Resources Minor Irrigation Department, Versus Bihar Patna 4. The Principal Secretary Minor Irrigation Department, Bihar 5. Block Development Officer, Bachhbara, Begusarai 6. The Director Public Information Officer-cum-Account Administration Self Employment District Rural Development Agency Begusarai .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== With Letters Patent Appeal No.1317 of 2010 IN Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 1487 of 2010 ====================================================== Sanjay Kumar Pathak son of Sita Ram Pathak resident of village-Mathar, P.S. Nayagaon, Begusarai .... .... Appellant/s 1. The State Of Bihar through the District Magistrate, Begusarai 2. The Deputy Development Commissioner, Begusarai 3. The Public Information cum Director Account Administration and self Versus Employment District Rural Development Agency, Begusarai 4. The Block Development Officer Sahebpur Kamal, Begusarai 5. The Principal Secretary Minor Irrigation Department, Bihar, Patna .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== With Civil Review No.318 of 2011 IN LPA 1317 of 2010 ====================================================== 1. The State Of Bihar through the District Magistrate Begusarai 2. The Deputy Development Commissioner, Begusarai 3. The Public Information cum Director Account Administration and Self Employment District Level Development Agency, Begusarai 4. The Block Development Officer, Sahebpur Kamal, Begusarai 5. The Principal Secretary, Minor Irrigation Department, Bihar, Patna .... .... Petitioner/s Versus 2 Patna High Court LPA No.1127 of 2010 (8) dt.20-02-2013 2 / 10 Sanjay Kr. Pathak son of Sita Ram Pathak, resident of village Mathar P.S. Mayagaon, Begusarai .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== With Civil Review No.374 of 2011 IN LPA 1127 of 2010 ====================================================== 1. The State Of Bihar through the District Magistrate Begusarai 2. The Deputy Development Commissioner, Begusarai 3. The Commissioner Water Resources Minor Irrigation Department, Bihar, Patna 4. The Principal Secretary Minor Irrigation Department, Govt. of Bihar 5. The Block Development Officer, Bachhbara, Begusarai 6. The Director, Public Information Officer cum Account Administration Self Employment District Rural Development Agency, Begusarai .... .... Petitioner/s Versus Ram Sagar Pathak son of Late Shree Kant Pathak, resident of village Mathan P.S. Nayagaon, Begusarai
Legal Reasoning
.... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance : (In LPA No.1127 of 2010) For the Appellant/s : Mr. Sanjay Prasad For the State : Mr. D. K. Sinha, AAG 2 with Mr. Tej Bahadur Singh AAG 7 (In LPA No.1317 of 2010) For the Appellant/s : Mr. Sanjay Prasad For the State Mr. D. K. Sinha, AAG 2 with Mr. Tej Bahadur Singh AAG 7 (In C. REV. No.318 of 2011) For the Petitioner/s : Mr. D. K. Sinha, AAG 2 with Mr. Tej Bahadur Singh AAG 7 For the Respondent/s : Mr. Sanjay Prasad (In C. REV. No.374 of 2011) For the Petitioner/s : Mr. D. K. Sinha, AAG 2 with Mr. Tej Bahadur Singh AAG 7 For the Respondent/s : Mr. Sanjay Prasad ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KISHORE KUMAR MANDAL And HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AMARESH KUMAR LAL CAV ORDER (Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KISHORE KUMAR MANDAL) 8 20-02-2013 Civil Review No. 374 of 2011 has been filed by the 3 Patna High Court LPA No.1127 of 2010 (8) dt.20-02-2013 3 / 10 State of Bihar and its officials seeking review of the order dated 28.6.2011 passed in LPA No.1127 of 2010. Civil Review No. 318 of 2011 has been filed to review the order dated 10.8.2011 passed in LPA No. 1317 of 2010. Those two letters patent appeals have
Decision
been filed by the writ petitioner of CWJC Nos. 6323 of 2009 and 1487 of 2010 respectively. Background facts in which the writ appeals preferred by the writ petitioners and the civil review applications filed by the State of Bihar are as follows: The writ petitioners were assigned execution of the job. Upon completion thereof they submitted their bills some time in the year 1991-92. No payment was made in spite of persistent efforts made by the writ petitioners. In the circumstances, two writ petitions came to be filed by them. A learned Single Judge of this Court by order dated 12.5.2010 passed in CWJC No. 6323 of 2009 and order dated 21.4.2010 passed in CWJC No. 1487 of 2010 directed the respondents particularly the District Magistrate, Begusarai to ensure payment of admitted dues within a period of three months from the date of receipt/communication of the order. Since the payments, as directed by this Court were not being made to the writ petitioners, they filed contempt applications vide MJC No. 3700 of 2010 (arising out of CWJC No. 6323 of 2009) 4 Patna High Court LPA No.1127 of 2010 (8) dt.20-02-2013 4 / 10 and MJC No. 3535 of 2010 (arising out of CWJC No. 1487 of 2010). The writ petitioners, simultaneously, also filed two writ appeals which presumably were confined to non grant of interest on the admitted dues by the learned writ court for which a prayer was made in the writ application(s). During the pendency of the contempt application(s) the State Respondent(s) paid the admitted dues to the writ petitioner(s) on 24.02.2011 without interest. In the light of the aforesaid facts both the contempt applications were disposed of on 9.03.2011. The writ appeal(s) preferred by the writ petitioner(s) were subsequently heard. LPA No.1127 of 2010 was considered by the writ appeal court on 28.6.2011 when an order was passed operative portion(s) whereof as culled out in para 4 and 5 read thus:- “4. In that view of the matter, the appellant is undoubtedly entitled to interest to compensate for the spiral of inflation as well as harassment. We are of the view that interest of justice shall be served if the appellant is paid interest at the rate of 9% (nine per cent) with effect from 1.2.1992 till 31.8.2011. The District Magistrate of the district of Begusarai shall ensure payment of the same by a demand draft within a period of two months. 5. Put up on 5.9.2011 at the top of this list on which date the learned Government Counsel shall be ready with the demand draft. In case the 5 Patna High Court LPA No.1127 of 2010 (8) dt.20-02-2013 5 / 10 demand draft is not produced, the Court may consider enhancement of the rate of interest or some other method to compensate the appellant.” LPA No. 1317 of 2010 was similarly considered on 10.8.2011 when an order was passed thereon operative portion(s) whereof as culled out in para 4 and 5 read thus:- “4. In that view of the matter, the appellant is undoubtedly entitled to interest to compensate for the spiral of inflation as well as harassment. We are of the view that interest of justice shall be served if the appellant is paid interest at the rate of 9% (nine per cent) with effect from 1.2.1992 till 31.8.2011. The District Magistrate of the district of Begusarai shall ensure payment of the same by a demand draft within a period of two months. 5. Put up on 5.9.2011 at the top of this list on which date the learned Government Counsel shall be ready with the demand draft. In case the demand draft is not produced, the Court may consider enhancement of the rate of interest or some other method to compensate the appellant.” In the settings of these facts the two civil review applications have been filed by the State. 6 Patna High Court LPA No.1127 of 2010 (8) dt.20-02-2013 6 / 10 We have heard the parties in two civil review applications and the letters patent appeals. There is agreement at Bar that the fate of the two civil review applications shall have bearing on the two letters patent appeals preferred by the writ petitioners. Learned counsel for the State appearing in support of the review applications contended that the writ petitions were filed by the petitioners for a direction to the respondents to pay the admitted dues with penal interest. The learned Single Judge disposed of the writ petitions directing payment of admitted dues within a period of time stipulated therein. No order for payment of interest was made by the learned Single Judge. It would, therefore, be presumed in law that the writ petitioners did not press for the said relief(s). If that be the case, then the learned writ appeal court committed an error in granting the relief of payment of interest thereon. The amount payable to the writ petitioners against the bills was deposited in civil deposit which did not earn interest. The said aspect of the matter has been overlooked by the writ appeal court while passing the orders thereon, as noticed hereinabove. Learned counsel further submitted that the admissible dues in the light of the order passed in the writ petitions preferred by the writ petitioners(opposite 7 Patna High Court LPA No.1127 of 2010 (8) dt.20-02-2013 7 / 10 parties in review applications) were paid on 24.02.2011 and as such there is apparent error/mistake in the order dated 28.6.2011 passed in LPA No. 1127 of 2010 directing payment of interest @ 9% with effect from 01.02.1992 till 31.8.2011. The order passed in LPA No.1127 of 2010, therefore, merits review to that extent. Learned counsel for the writ petitioners (opposite parties in two civil review applications), on the other hand, submits that presumption in law would be that relief(s) which was/were not granted by the learned writ court stood rejected. In such circumstances, the two writ appeals were filed by the writ petitioners challenging refusal of grant of penal interest on the admitted dues of the writ petitioners. Learned counsel, however, fairly stated that admissible dues as per the order passed on the writ petitions were paid to the writ petitioners on 24.02.2011. It has been further argued that from bare perusal of the respective orders passed on the writ appeals which is/are sought to be reviewed by the State that considering the fact that admitted dues of the writ petitioners who had made huge investment had not been paid for a long period of time and they were subjected to harassment in so much so that even after passing of the orders on the writ petitions the same were not paid until contempt applications were filed, the writ appeal court with a view to 8 Patna High Court LPA No.1127 of 2010 (8) dt.20-02-2013 8 / 10 compensate the appellant(s) against the spiral of inflation, granted the relief(s) prayed for in the writ appeals in the manner culled out in paragraph 4 of those orders passed on the writ appeal(s). We have considered the rival submissions made by the parties and perused the materials on record. This Court would exercise jurisdiction if there is error apparent on the face of the record. In other words, an error which strikes one on mere looking at the record. An order even if erroneous would not merit review. Law in this regard is well settled. The power of review can be exercised for correction of a mistake and not to substitute a view. The review can not be treated as an appeal in disguise. We have examined the respective orders passed on the writ appeals passed by this Court on the anvil of those principles. The writ appeal court in the two orders passed on the writ appeals preferred by the writ petitioners seems to have passed the order directing payment of interest on the admissible dues in the light of the facts emanating from records primarily to compensate the loss sustained by the writ petitioners. In other words, the interest on the admissible dues were directed to be paid to offset the harassment to which the writ petitioners were subjected to continued withholding of the admissible dues even 9 Patna High Court LPA No.1127 of 2010 (8) dt.20-02-2013 9 / 10 after passing of the order in the writ petitions keeping in focus the spiral of inflation. It thus appears that a discretion vested in Court, in the particular facts of the case, was exercised. This Court while exercising the power of review would, therefore, not substitute its view. However, from the facts placed on record and submissions made by the parties it appears to be an admitted position that the admitted dues were paid to the appellant of LPA No. 1127 of 2010 (Ram Sagar Pathak vs. The State of Bihar & Ors.) on 24.02.2011. In the order dated 28.6.2011 passed in LPA No. 1127 of 2010, as noticed above, a direction was issued to pay interest @ 9% with effect from 01.02.1992 till 31.8.2011. There seems to be an obvious error/mistake as the appellant of the said appeal was paid the admitted dues on 24.02.2011. The said error apparent on the face of the record, therefore, merits correction /review. Consequently, in the light of the discussions made hereinabove, we find no merit in Civil Review No. 318 of 2011. It is accordingly dismissed. Civil Review No. 374 of 2011 is partly allowed and the order dated 28.6.2011 passed in LPA No. 1127 of 2010 is modified and corrected to the extent that the appellant of the said appeal shall be entitled to payment of interest @ 9% with effect from 01.02.1992 till 24.02.2011. 10 Patna High Court LPA No.1127 of 2010 (8) dt.20-02-2013 10 / 10 The two letters patent appeals being LPA No.1127 of 2010 as modified hereinabove and LPA No. 1317 of 2010 are also disposed of. The respondents of those appeals shall carry out the direction within a period of two months. The parties shall bear their own cost(s). (Kishore Kumar Mandal, J) HR/- (Amaresh Kumar Lal, J)