M/s L.P.A. Enterprises v. 1. Central Coalfields Ltd. a subsidiary of Coal India Ltd., Ranchi. 2. The Chairman-cum-Managing
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(C) No.906 of 2019 ------ M/s L.P.A. Enterprises --- Petitioner Versus 1. Central Coalfields Ltd. a subsidiary of Coal India Ltd., Ranchi. 2. The Chairman-cum-Managing Director, Central Coalfields Ltd., Ranchi. 3. The General Manager (KTA), Central Coalfields Ltd., Kathara, Bokaro. 4. The Staff Officer (Civil) (KTA), Central Coalfields Ltd., Kathara, Bokaro. 5. Area Finance Manager, Kathara, Central Coalfields Ltd., Kathara, Bokaro. ----- Respondents ------ CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN
Legal Reasoning
For the Petitioner : Mr. Mukesh Kr. Sinha, Adv. For the Respondents : Mrs. Ranjana Mukherjee, Adv. ------- ------- I.A. No.6724 of 2021 10/19.02.2024 Mr. Anurag Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner seeks permission to withdraw this interlocutory application. Permission is accorded. I.A. No.6724 of 2021 is dismissed as withdrawn. I.A. No.2259 of 2020 This interlocutory application has been preferred by the petitioner for amendment in the relief in the prayer portion of the writ petition by virtue of which a prayer has been made directing upon the respondents to release the balance payments with respect to different works executed by the petitioner which has been held up by the respondents on account of alleged unauthorized occupation of Quarter no.NMQ-14, Russsian Colony. In the writ application the petitioner has made several prayers including executions of the agreement with respect to work order dated 23.07.2017 as also for quashing of letter dated 15.04.2018 by virtue of which the petitioner has been saddled with the liability of Rs.48,10,660.37 on account of unauthorized occupation of three of the quarters of respondents CCL. -2- Regard being had to the above, the amendment which has been sought for by the petitioner is allowed. I.A. No.2259 of
Decision
2020 stands disposed of. Let I.A. No.2259 of 2020 be treated as a part of the main writ application. W.P.(C) No.906 of 2019 In this writ application the petitioner though has made several prayers, but Mr. Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioner has confined his prayer with respect to prayer no.1(c) which is regarding the notice dated 15.04.2018 issued by the respondent no.3 by virtue of which the petitioner has been called upon to make payment of Rs. 48,10,660.37 on account of unauthorized occupation of the quarters of the company. By virtue of the amendment application having been allowed in I.A. No.2259 of 2020 the further prayer of the petitioner is for releasing the balance amount with respect to the different works executed by the petitioner and which has been unnecessarily held up on account of the illegal occupation of Quarter No. NMQ-14, Russsian Colony. It has been submitted by Mr. Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner had executed different works in the respondent company and though the running bills have been paid but some bills have been held up on account of alleged illegal occupation of three of the company’s quarters. Learned counsel submits that a case for unauthorized occupation was initiated before the Estate Officer under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 and in the said case the Estate Officer has come to a conclusion that only with respect of quarter no. MNQ-14 the petitioner is in unauthorized occupation and so far as the rest two quarters are concerned, one quarter was not in existence while the other quarter the same was allotted to one of the employees of M/s Central Coalfields Ltd. Learned counsel submits that so far as Quarter No.MNQ-14 -3- situated at Russian Colony is concerned, the same has already been vacated by the petitioner on 01.12.2023 and in such circumstances therefore respondents be directed to recalculate the dues on account of the said quarter MNQ-14 as per the finding given by the Estate Officer and thereafter release the balance amount in favour of the petitioner. Mrs. Ranjana Mukherjee, learned counsel appearing for the respondents CCL has submitted that the Estate Officer should have passed an order under the provisions of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 but instead has merely given a report for which he has been directed by the management to submit a show-cause. Learned counsel further submits that it is beyond dispute that so far as quarter no.MNQ-14 is concerned, the petitioner was in unauthorized occupation for more than 10 years and had also constructed a garage and was enjoying free electricity provided by M/s Central Coalfields Limited. Learned counsel further submits that as regards Quarter No.MQ-141 is concerned, there is no finding of the Estate Officer that the petitioner was not in unauthorized occupation of the said quarter. She therefore submits that the liability fixed against the petitioner is based on the correct facts. She has further submitted that agreement of the petitioner was prematurely terminated on account of the petitioner not being able to fulfill his obligation with respect to work order which had been allotted to him. What would appear from the factual aspects of the case is that the petitioner was given certain work orders by the respondent-CCL and it is the case of the petitioner that running bills were regularly paid to the petitioner, though with respect to the pending bills taking resort to the purported unauthorised occupation of the three of the company’s quarters the said bills have been withheld. A supplementary counter affidavit has been filed by the respondent CCL in which the finding of the Estate Officer has been recorded and from which it appears that though -4- initially the petitioner was said to be in unauthorized occupation of quarter no.974, MQ-141 and MNQ-14 but the finding which has been given by the Estate Officer seems to suggest that so far as MNQ-974 is concerned, the said quarter is not in existence and as regards quarter no. MQ-141 is concerned, the same was allotted and was in possession of one Suraj Malhotra who was the Assistant Manager (Personnel) in Kathara Washery of M/s Central Coalfields Limited. The details of the previous occupants have also been given and the petitioner had stated that he had remained in the said quarter till 2007 and had left the quarter on account of retirement of his father and no dues certificate was also issued, though it seems that the said fact has not been appropriately verified by the Estate Officer. However, as regards quarter no.MNQ-14 is concerned, there is no doubt about the fact that the petitioner was in unauthorized occupation of the said quarter and had also constructed a garage and was enjoying free electricity facilities provided by the CCL and the said quarter according to learned counsel for the petitioner has finally been vacated on 1.12.2023. It is the case of the petitioner therefore that the respondent CCL can charge rent, electricity, etc. only on Quarter No.MNQ-14 from the date of the unauthorized occupation of the petitioner till the date of its vacation i.e. 1.12.2023. What would transpire from the findings of the Estate Officer that quarter no.974 is non-existent but there appears to be some ambiguity with respect to quarter no.MQ-141. However, as regards quarter no.MNQ-14 is concerned, the petitioner was in unauthorized occupation and according to the petitioner had vacated it on 1.12.2023. The impugned order on the background facts as noted above has been perused from which it appears that the petitioner has been saddled with the liability of Rs.48,10,660.37 based on the calculation made on account of illegal occupancy of three quarters and for enjoying the facilities including the electricity -5- charges. However, as noted above, one of the quarters is non- existent and so far as quarter no.MNQ-14 is concerned, the same was admittedly in unauthorized occupation of the petitioner. As regards quarter no.MQ-141 is concerned, as stated above there does not appear to be a definite finding as to whether the petitioner at any point of time was in unauthorized occupation of the said quarter or not though according to the petitioner, he had left the quarter on account of retirement of his father and a no dues certificate was also submitted, but there does not appear to be any specific quarter no. given in the said no dues certificate. In view of the aforesaid facts therefore, the impugned order dated 15.04.2018 passed by the respondent no.3 seems to be not on correct appreciation of the facts as would be evident from the subsequent report of the Estate Officer. Accordingly, the same is hereby quashed and set aside with a direction to the respondent no.3 to further inquire with respect to quarter no.MQ- 141 as to whether the petitioner at any point of time was in unauthorized occupation of the said quarter or not. The respondent no.3 is further directed to get a recalculation done of unauthorized occupation of quarter no.MNQ-14 which was admittedly in unauthorized occupation of the petitioner, though has subsequently been vacated as per the version of the learned counsel for the petitioner on 1.12.2023. The respondent no.3 therefore has to make a fresh recalculation based on the findings recorded above only with respect to quarter(s), one of which appears to be in unauthorized occupation of the petitioner and upon recalculation submit a fresh notice with respect to the amount which has to be deposited by the petitioner. The respondent no.3 shall also take into consideration as to whether there is any admitted dues are payable to the petitioner and if the said finding is in the affirmative, the respondent no.3 shall take steps for releasing the said dues after deducting the amount which is to be freshly calculated regarding the charges which the petitioner has to borne out due to the illegal occupation of the quarter(s) in question. -6- The aforesaid exercise should be completed by the respondent no.3 within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt / production of a copy of this order. This writ application accordingly stands disposed of. (Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J.) (Deepak Roshan, J.) Shamim/-