The High Court · 2023
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI (Letters Patent Appellate Jurisdiction) LPA No. 128 of 2019 Abhishek Kumar, son of Devendra Prasad, resident of Digwadih, PO- Jeolgora, PS- Jorapokhar, District- Dhanbad ... Appellant Versus 1. M/s Bharat Coking Coal Limited, through Chairman-cum-Managing Director, H.Q. Koyla Bhawan, PO Koyla Nagar, PS-Seraidhela, District- Dhanbad 2. Director ( Personnel), M/s Bharat Coking Coal Limited, H.Q.- Koyla Bhawan, PO- Koyla Nagar, PS- Seraidhela, District-Dhanbad 3. General Manager, Eastern Jharia Area, PO-Bhawra, PS- Sudamdih, District- Dhanbad 4. Project Officer, Chandan Project Sudamdih, PO and PS- Pathardih, District- Dhanbad 5. Estate Officer, Eastern Jharia Area, PO-Bhawra, PS- Bhawra, District- Dhanbad ------ CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RATNAKER BHENGRA … Respondents ----- For the Appellant
Legal Reasoning
: Mr. Ashok Kumar Pandey, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. Anoop Kumar Mehta, Advocate Ms. Savita Kumari, Advocate ----- Oral Order 5th July 2023 Per, Shree Chandrashekhar,J The appellant who claimed himself a nominee of Gadadhar Rewani, Falguni Mahto and others for employment under the Bharat Coking Coal Limited ( in short, 'BCCL') has challenged the order of 2 nd January 2019 passed in WP(S) No. 5753 of 2015. 2. Referring to the judgments in “Union Territory of Pondicherry and Ors. v P.V. Suresh and Ors.” (1994) 2 SCC 70; “Poyymat India ( P) Ltd. and Anr. v National Insurance Co. Ltd. and Ors” (2005) 9 SCC 174; “United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v M.K.J. Corp” (1996) 6 SCC 428, and; “Kerala State Electricity Board and Anr. v Kurien E. Kalathil and Ors” (2000) 6 SCC 293 the writ Court has refused to issue a direction to BCCL to provide employment to the appellant. . 3. The writ Court has held that the Memorandum of Understanding vide Annexure-1 dated 2nd April 1997 is in the private realm having no statutory force and, therefore, enforcement of which cannot be sought in a writ proceeding. 4. The writ Court has held as under: 2 LPA No. 128 of 2019 “This Court after appreciating the arguments advanced on behalf of the learned counsel for the petitioner is of the view that he is insisting upon this Court to direct the respondent management to provide appointment by way of nomination made by the original title holder on the ground that nothing has been referred that only the lineal of the land owners would be provided with the appointment, when the emphasis is being given on the terms and conditions of the agreement the same is to be strictly binding upon the parties and when the respondent management has provided appointment on the basis of the list appended to Annexure-1 then it cannot be said that there is any deviation from the terms and conditions of the agreement. Further the contention of the petitioner is to re-write the terms of the contract since admittedly the name of the petitioner is not appended in the agreement as contained under Annexure-1 dated 02.04.1997 rather it has been stated therein that the 9 persons whose names have been appended to Anneuxre-1 would be provided with the appointment. Now the petitioner is insisting upon this Court to include his name by issuing a direction upon the State authorities sitting under Article 226 of the Constitution of India but the same is not permissible since it is the settled position of law that the agreement is to be acted upon without any alteration and further the High Court cannot re-write the terms of the contract, reference in this regard may be made to the judgment rendered in the case of Union Territory of Pondicherry and Ors Vs. P.V. Suresh and Ors., reported in (1994) 2 SCC 70 wherein at paragraph 11 & 12 it has been held that the Court has no jurisdiction to alter the terms or re-write the contract between the parties. In the case of Polymat India (P) Ltd. and Anr. Vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd. and Ors., reported in (2005) 9 SCC 174 wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court by taking aid of the judgment rendered in the case of United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. M.K.J. Corp., reported in (1996) 6 SCC 428 has been pleased to observe that “after the completion of the contract, no material alteration can be made in its terms except by mutual consent”. It is further settled that if the contract between the parties is in the realm of the private law, not being a statutory contract. The disputes relating to interpretation of the terms and conditions of such a contract could not have been agitated in a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. That is a matter of agitation by a Civil Court or in arbitration if provided for in the contract. Reference in this regard may be made to the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Kerala State Electricity Board and Anr. Vrs. Kurien E. Kalathil and Ors., reported in (2000) 6 SCC 293, herein, in the instant case, the agreement as contained in Annexure-1 is totally in the private realm having not been statutory and therefore the application itself under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not held to be maintainable. In view of the aforesaid settled position of law, the relief which has been sought for by the petitioner is not fit to be accepted. If the relief which has been sought for by the petitioner would be extended, it will lead to allowing the alternative mode of appointment to be given on the nomination made by the original title holder in favour of the intruder which is not the intent and spirit of the land acquisition acts. In view of the aforesaid reasons and in the considered view of this Court that no relief can be granted to the petitioner, therefore, the writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed.” 5. At the outset, we intend to indicate that the appellant who claims that his lands comprises under Khata No. 8, Plot Nos. 456, 441, 437 and 3 LPA No. 128 of 2019 421(p) in the Mouza Parghabad were acquired by the BCCL in Land Acquisition Case No. 27 of 1995-96 has laid a claim for appointment on the basis of Memorandum of Understanding dated 2nd April 1997 signed by Gadadhar Rewani, Sri Jagat Lal Mahto and Bakranath Mahto who are not related to him in any manner whatsoever. Pursuant to the afore-mentioned Memorandum of Understanding names of nine persons were finalized for employment under the BCCL one of whom was Rajesh Kumar Ojha whose name finds place at serial No. 8 in the list of persons to be appointed. 6. Mr. Ashok Kumar Pandey, the learned counsel for the appellant has contended that on account of some dispute raised by the BCCL against Rajesh Kumar Ojha the name of the appellant was proposed for appointment under the BCCL and, in connection therewith, Falguni Mahto, Bakranath Mahto and Jagat Lal Mahto have filed affidavit and indemnity-cum- security bond both dated 18th February 2008 in his favour. 7. In our opinion, the Memorandum of Understanding which was signed in the year 1997 for providing employment to nine persons cannot be enforced in 2015, that is, after 18 years when the appellant filed WP(S) No. 5753 of 2015. From the materials on record, we gather that the appellant has disclosed his age as 35 years on 11th February 2019 and while so on his own account in the year 1997 he had attained only 15 years of age on which date he was not eligible for appointment. Moreover, he has not been able to establish that he is or his ancestor was a land looser who could have laid a claim for employment under the scheme. In fact, he has made contradictory pleadings inasmuch as if he is a land looser he is not required to raise a claim on the basis of a so-called nomination by strangers – not his relatives. 8. Having regard to these facts, we are not inclined to observe anything more on the claim raised by the appellant and, accordingly, LPA No. 128 of 2019 is dismissed. (Shree Chandrashekhar, J.) Jharkhand High Court Ranchi Dated 5th July 2023 Sharda/S.B.-NAFR (Ratnaker Bhengra, J.)