Korba, (C.G.). vs State

(SB: Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Agnihjotri, J) 14,7_,2Q09 ! Shri R. K. Jaiswal, Advocate f^r the petitioners. Shri Alok Bakshi, Govt: Advocate for the respondents/State. ) Dr. N. K. Shukla, Senior Advcbate with Shri Shailendra Shukla, Advocate for the respondents/S.^.C.L. Heard, . ! !' Pinal order is passed separatfly in W.P.(C) No. 1000/2008 and other connected matters, includiiig this petition. -fl^-" Sd/- SatishK.Agnihotn Judge 1 't.' 'A ^. A ...^••"" c€}^5--;. .i-'^y!::----" 5^y-- C Pfaz?^ IN THE HIGH COURT OF CIfflATTISGARH AT BILASPUR PETITIONER /•' RESPONDENTS: 1. W.P. f©No. '' ^~^rT) of 2008 Ai'i.i.rg Nahkul Singh son of Shri Butug aged about 50 years, resident of Village Jilda, Tahshil Katghora, District Korba, (C.G.). VERSUS of Chhattisgarh State Through- Secretary, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur, (C.G.). ^ ,& .0^%^ ^

2. Chief Managing Director, S.E.C.L., Seepat Road, Bilaspur, (C.G.).

4. The Collector, Korba, C.G. S.D.O. (Revenue), Tahsil- Katghora, Distrct- Korba, C.G. WRJT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR THE ISSUANCE OF WRIT IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS CERTIORARI. PROHIBITION AND FOR OTHER SUITABLE WRIILQR WRITS DIRECTION _QR DIRECTIONS ORDER OR ORDERS rtMS AF^. a. \y ^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR WRIT PETITION fC) No. 1000 of 2008 PETITIONER : Nahkul Singh son of Shri Butug aged about 50 years, resident of village Jilda, Tahsil Katghora, District Korba (C.G.) VERSUS RESPONDENTS : 1. State of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.)

2. Chief Managing Director, S.E.C.L., Seepat Road, Bilaspur (C.G.) 3. The Collector, Korba C.G.

4. S.D.O. (Revenue) Tahsil Katghora District Korba C.G. And W.P.(C) No.7321 of 2007, W.P. (C) Nos. 915, 917, 918, 919, 920,921, 922, 923, 953, 955, 956, 959, 960, 961, 1001, 1002, 1003, 1004, 1030, 1050, 1051, 1052, 1053, 1054, 1055,1056,1057,1058,1065, 1066,1067, 1068, 1147,1148,1149,1150, 1151,1195,1196,1197,1198, 1199,1200, 1201,1202,1221,1222,1223, 1224,1225,1226,1227,1295, 1296,1297, 1550, 1551,1552,1553,1554, 1585, 1586, 1587, 1588, 1589, 1590,1591, / €'59fi, 1605, 1674, 1675, 1676, 1710, 1863, 1864, 1865, 1866, 1867, 1868, 1869, 1870,1871,1872,1873, 1874, 1875,1876,1877,1878, 1960,1990, 2451, 2452, 2453, 2454,2455,2456, 2457,2458,2459,2460,2461, 2462, 2463, 2464, 2465,2466,2467, 2476,2477,2478,2479,2480, 2481,2482, 2483, 2484, 2485,2486,2538, 2540,2541,2542,2562,2563, 2569,2570, 3300,3301,3302,3303,3304, 3305, 3306, 3307,3308,3309, 3335,3336, 3337,3338,3339,3340,3346, 3347, 3348, 3349, 3350, 3433, 3556,3557, 3558, 3559, 3560, 3561,3562,3563, 3564, 3762, 3763, 5072, 5202, 5203, 5204, 5205, 5206,5210,5268,5269,5322, 5396, 5397, 5398, 5399, 5400, 6102, 6103, 6254 and 6274 of2008. WRIT PETITIONS UNDER ARTICLE^_26 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA (SB: HonTsle Shri Satish K. Agnihotri J.) Shri R. K. Jaiswal, Advocate for the petitioners. Shri Alok Bakshi, Govt. Advocate for the respondents/State. Dr. N. K. ShuKla, Senior Advocate with Shri Shailendra Shukla, Advocate for the respondents/S.E.C.L. ORDER (orall (Passed on this 14th day ofJuly, 2009) Heard. The aforementioned 181 writ petitions involve common question of facts and law, asto whether, one member of the family of the displaced family, on construction of Minimata Bango Dam, entitled to employment as per their qualifications in Sindurgarh Coalfields Limited, Sindurgarh, District Korba, therefore all the Writ Pedtions (C) No.7321 of 2007 & 915, 917, 918, 919, 920, 921,922,923,953,955, 956,959,960,961,1000,1001, 1002, 1003, 1004, 1030, 1050, 1051, 1052, 1053, 1054, 1055, 1056, 1057, 1058, 1065, 1066, 1067, 1068, 1147, 1148, 1149, 1150, 1151, 1195, 1196, 1197, 1198, 1199, 1200, 1201, 1202, 1221, 1222, 1223, 1224, 1225, 1226, 1227, 1295, 1296, 1297, 1550, 1551, 1552, 1553, 1554, 1585, 1586, 1587, 1588, 1589, 1590, 1591, 1592, 1605, 1674, 1675, 1676, 1710, 1863, 1864, 1865, 1866, 1867, 1868, 1869, 1870, 1871, 1872, 1873, 1874, 1875, 1876, 1877, 1878, 1960, 1990, 2451, 2452, 2453, 2454, 2455, 2456, 2457, 2458, 2459, 2460, 2461, 2462, 2463, 2464, 2465, 2466, 2467, 2476, 2477, 2478, 2479, 2480, 2481, 2482, 2483, 2484, 2485, 2486, 2538, 2540, 2541, 2542, 2562, 2563, 2569, 2570, 3300, 3301, 3302, 3303, 3304, 3305, 3306, 3307, 3308, ,\v/0 ^' 3309, 3335, 3336, 3337, 3338, 3339, 3340, 3346, 3347, 3348, 3349, 3350, 3433, 3556, 3557, 3558, 3559, 3560, 3561, 3562, 3563, 3564, 3762, 3763, 5072, 5202, 5203, 5204, 5205, 5206, 5210, 5268, 5269, 5322, 5396, 5397, 5398, 5399, 5400, 6102, 6103, 6254 and 6274 of 2008 are being disposed of by this comnion order. The petitioners belong to villages Sakho (Larla), Koma, Jilda, Laliya, Bahera, Tunga, Etma, Khairbhavna, Bodanala, Jajmi, Jamkachar, Thuthipeepar, Udena, Baldevnagar, Bandha Ghosra, Kendai, Sarbhoka, Buka, Kansra, Banjridand, Banjari, Bhulsivhavna, Sarkhoda, Navghata, Khonsra, Bhulsideeh, Bahera, Margaon, Rampa, Udena, Satrega, Chatan, Patibahar, Garh, Larla, Yadleynagar, Jajgi and Tonsra, District - Korba. The State Government proposed to construct Minimata Bango Irrigation Dain way back in the year 1977. The lands belonging to all the petitioners were acquired sometimes between the years 1977 - 1988, in accordance with the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short 'the Act, 1894'). There is no grievance with regard to the acquisition or payment 6f compensadon or on any other count which is permissible under the provisions of the Act, 1894. The construction of the dam was coinpleted in the year 1985. The State Government, in order to provide for the resettleinent of displaced persons from lands which were acquired for irrigation projects, power projects or public utility projects and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto, enacted Madhya Pradesh Pariyojana Ke Karan Visthapit Vyakti (F'unhsthapan) v.\ Adhiniyam, 1985 (for short 'the Adhiniyam, 1985'). In Chapter II, Section 3 provides for appointment of Chief Controlling Authority in resettlement matters, Section 4 provides for appointment of Resettlement Commissioner and Project Resettlement Officer and Assistant Project Resettlement Officer, Section 5 provides for duties of Resettlement Commissioner and Section 6 provides for Duties of Commissioner. Chapter III deals with Declaration of Project and Consequences to ensure the Reforin. Section 10 of the Adhiniyam, 1985 provides for declaration of project, which requires resettlement of displaced persons, if the State Govemment is of the opinion that it is necessary or expedient in the public interest so to do, it may by notification declare any irrigation project, power project or public utility project or any composite project thereof to be a project to which the provisions ofthe Adhiniyam, 1985 shall apply.

5. Under the notification only Indira Sagar Project has been declared as the project under the provisions of the Adhiniyam,

1985. Even otherwise, it is not in dispute, as learned counsel appearing for the petitioners has not produced any documents to show that the Minimata Bango Irrigation project was also an irrigation project for the purpose under the provisions of Section 10 of the Adhiniyam, 1985. Thus, the Minimata Bango Project was not a project wherein resettlement was to be done in accordance with the provisions of Section 18 of the Adhiniyam,

6. The sole ground of Shri R. K. Jaiswal, learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioners, is that in the meeting held on 1.8.1997, w~' ^ ^\A attended by the officers of the, then, State of Madhya Pradesh and Chairman-cum- Managing Director, S.E.C.L. Shri V. K. Sahagal, under the Chairmanship of the Collector, Bilaspur, it was resolved to provide einployment to one member of displaced family of the Mini Mata Bango Irrigadon Project, as is evident in the letter of the Cominissioner dt. 4/5 August, 1997 (Annexure P/l), and the same reads as under :- ftr-^re vtvvff " 6. :-gis'rsT—'?i?-f?r^?i^, ^piT T^f <t>1iidi 'S^PT 4" f^s.nfttrF ^ (;t<j,Rti^T iiA^ ^ ^gtRra> ^t t f^ Rf-^'llli tfrl^dl <S|C;1-1 ^' ttT^ V^ ^ f^snftd cijR^tiT ^it ?fhT ^t ^tJ^T ^"^ <1^ t f^' •i1ui<ii< f^TT un^TT 1 ^ $W W^ET ^' fetT^ f^STTPRT "iRtl'yT ^t. f^-T fe-T ^Tqf 4' ^ uIT W(ft t | 'T'T^' PlfclFRd i|)<'l|dl ^ 31^'tfK, Pl'ij,r^1<)T "

7. The petitioners claira relief on the basis of the above stated para 6 of the minutes of the proceedings, wherein it was observed that the Chairman-cuin-Managing Director accepts the proposal in principle. Thereafter, it appears that no order has been passed and no proper agreement has been executed between the State * Government and the S.E.C.L. The petitioners further rely on a letter dated 2.7.2008 (Annexure P/7), written by the Executive Engineer, Minimata Bango Dam Department No.3, Machadoli, District - Korba to the Collector, Korba, wherein there is a reference of the meeting dated 6.3.1997, and a list of the applicants was enclosed.

8. According to Shri Alok Bakshi, learned counsel appearing for the respondents/State, all the acquisition of the lands, which came in submergence of the Minimata Bango Dam, has been completed in the year 1988 and all the benefits, accruing v~~ r^~^.'\ ^. a l'<;l;y Y W^- therefroin, have been granted to the oustees. The provisions of the Adhiniyam, 1985 are not applicable to the petitioners, as fhere was no declaration under Section 10 of the Adhiniyam,

1985. At the time of acquisition of the lands for Hasdeo Bango Project, a detaild scheme for rehabilitation was prepared. As per that scheme, number of welfare schemes were started for the benefit of displaced persons. This included fishing, poultry, sericulture, collection of forest produce, irrigation works under the supervision of concerned departments. Various divisional committees were constituted for properly executing the above- refrred works. These programmes were monitored from time to time and were properly given effect to in the manner to provide maximum benefits to the displaced persons. The monitoring continuing and reports have been prepared at regular intervals. There was no provision for grant of employment to any member of displaced families.

9. Shri Bakshi further submits that it is evident from the aforesaid minutes of the meeting dated 1.8.1997, that no commitment was made by the State Government or by S.E.C.L to provide employment, if any, to a member of the displaced family. In principle, it was observed that the S.E.C.L may provide employment, according to their requirements.

10. Shri Bakshi next submits that the petition is belated, without any explanation for inordinate delay. The lands were acquired in the year 1977-1988 and these writ petitions have been filed in the year 2007 - 2008. Thus, for about 18 years, the petitioners have slept over on their rights, if any. Thus, the writ petitions v~: deserve to be dismissed on account of unexplained and inordinate delay, also.

11. Dr. N. K. Shukla, learned Senior counsel with Shri Shailendra Shukla, learned counsel appearing for the respondents/S.E.C.L. subniits that the ineeting was not either an agreement or a promise. This was a discussion, no proper agreement was executed and as such the minutes of the meeting cannot be held as binding on the S.E.C.L. The S.E.C.L. is not bound to provide any eniployment to the members of the oustees' family, which have been disturbed on account of construction of the Minimata Bango irrigation project.

12. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto.

13. Further reliance of Shri Jaiswal on a rehabilitation policy dated 25th September, 1991 (Arinexure R-2/1), for the year 1991 needs no consideration. On a bare reading of the policy it is clear that the policy was for those oustees who have been ousted on *• account of any mining project. Admittedly, Minimata Bango project is not a mining proje,ct but it is an irrigation project.

14. In the course of argument, Shri Jaiswal relies on a Model Rehabilitation Policy of the State of Chhattisgarh, 2007 (Annexure P/6). The policy does not provide for the resettlement of the oustees, who have been displaced way back in the year 1985 or thereafter up to 2008. The policy deals with the rehabilitation of the persons ousted after framing of the policy, not the old oustees. •<E>E=^ I t^

15. On perusal of the pleadings and documents, it is apparent that the petitioners are not seeking any relief against the State Government. The petitioners seek employment for a niember of the ousted family in the Sindur Garh Coal Fields Ltd. on the basis of the minutes of the meeting held on 1.8.1997. It is a well established principle of law that a decision taken in a meeting has no binding effect without there being a proper order on the basis of the resolution. Even otherwise, the resolution clearly makes it clear that the S.E.C.L. has accepted the proposal in ^ principle, not in actual terms and thereafter, no steps were taken either by the State Government or by any other authority to execute either an agreement to give effect to the resolution or to see that any order or notification is issued to that effect.

16. It trite that the Court cannot direct any officer or a Government or a corporation to take a policy decision or pass an order, which is not supported by any statutory force. Further, a decision, taken in the meeting, does not confer any right on the ^ti' t- petitioners to have an employment with Sindurgarh Coalfields. There is no statute, notification or policy which provides for grant of employment to any meinber of displaced persons of the project involved in this petition. The only law, which provides for grant of certain benefits is under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. It is not the grievance of the petitioners that the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act have not been complied with or they have been denied any benefits under provisions of law. \))3 \

17. It is well settled principles of law that a writ of mandamus can b.e issued to a statutory authority to compel to perform its statutory obligation. It cannot issue to compel him to pass an order in violation of a statutory provision. (See Hope Textiles Ltd. and another v. Union oflndia and others1).

18. The policy decision of the State Government cannot be exarained on any other ground, except if it is contrary to the constitutional provisions or against the statutory provisions. (See Darothi Clare Parreira (Snit.) and others v. State of Maharashtra and others2).

19. In W.B. Housing Board and others Vs. Brijendra Prasad Gupta and others3, Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as under: "32. The courts normally do not interfere in the policy matters of the State. If, however, the policy so formulated is the mandate of the Constitution or any statutory against provision it can certainly be tested on the principles ofjudicial review. When an act falls within the policy of the State which has been formulated for the benefit of the poor and needy and which policy cannot be faulted, the court should stay its hands and need not examine the details minutely with a magnifying glass to find soine fault here and thee unless there are allegadons of inala fides. An overall view is to be taken of the inatter and this potent weapon of judicial review cannot be used indiscriminately."

20. Unless a policy or action is unconstitutional or the order is abuse of the power, the Court should not interfere in such matters. (See ' 1995 Supp (3) SCC 199 2 (1996) 9 SCC633 3 (1997) 6 SCC 207 10 \\y Federation of Railway Officers Association and others v. Unionoflndia*).

21. In All India ITDC Workers' Union and others Vs. ITDC and others5, Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that "This Court also has held that the said policy decision should be least interfered with in judicial review."

22. On the point of delay and laches, Hon'ble Supreme Court in U.P.Jal Nigain and another Vs. Jashwant Singh and another6 obseryed as under: "6. The quesdon of delay and laches has been examined by this Court in a series of decisions and laches and delay has been considered to be an important factor in exercise of th.e discretionary relief under Article 226 of the Constitution. When a person who is not vigilant of his rights and acquiesces with the situation, can his writ petition be heard after a couple of years on the ground that same relief should be granted to him as was granted to person similarly situated rights and challenged his who was vigilant about his retirement which was said to be made on attaining the age of 58 years."

23. The petitioners have acquiesced and waived their rights, if any, and there is no explanation for such an inordinate delay of 18 years. On this count alone, these petitions deserve to be dismissed.

24. Having applied the well-settled principles of law to the facts of the case wherein there is no statute, notifications, executive instructions or the policy which provides for grant of employment to one member of the displaced person of Minamata Bango 4 5 6