Duryodhan Rewani, son of Sri Moti Ram Rewani, resident of Railway Market Area, Railway v. 1. The Union of India, through the Ministry of Railway, New Delhi, PO- New
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI (Letters Patent Appellate Jurisdiction) L.P.A No. 147 of 2019 Duryodhan Rewani, son of Sri Moti Ram Rewani, resident of Railway Market Area, Railway Settlement Mahuda, PO & PS-Mahuda, District- Dhanbad (Jharkhand), presently residing at village-Kacharra, P.O. & P.S- Bhatdih, District Dhanbad (Jharkhand) ...… Appellant Versus 1. The Union of India, through the Ministry of Railway, New Delhi, PO- New Delhi, New Delhi 2. Divisional Railway Manager, South Eastern Railway, Adra Division, Purulia, having its office at Purulia, PO & PS-Purulia, District Purulia (West Bengal) 3. Assistant Engineer, South Eastern Railway, Mahuda, PO & PS- Mahuda, District Dhanbad 4. Senior Divisional Engineer (II), South Eastern Railway, Adra, PO & PS- Adra, District-Purulia (West Bengal) 5. Assistant Security Officer, South Eastern Railway, Adra, PO & PS- Adra, District-Purulia (West Bengal) 6. Inspector of Works, South Eastern Railway, Mahuda, PO & PS- Mahuda, District-Dhanbad .…Respondents --------------
Legal Reasoning
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RATNAKER BHENGRA For the Appellant For the Respondents : Mr. Arpan Mishra, Advocate : Mr. Shiv Kumar Sharma, CGC ---------------
Decision
O R D E R 14th June 2023 Per, Shree Chandrashekhar, J. The appellant has challenged the order dated 15th January 2019 passed in W.P(C) No.4333 of 2016. 2. By the aforesaid order, the challenge laid by the appellant to the order dated 18th July 2016 passed in Misc. Appeal No.64 of 2013 has failed. 3. Mr. Shiv Kumar Sharma, the learned CGC appearing for the respondent-South Eastern Railway has raised a preliminary objection to the maintainability of the present Letters Patent Appeal on the ground that an order passed by the writ Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is not amenable to the Letters Patent jurisdiction. 2 L.P.A No.147 of 2019 4. A proceeding under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971 was initiated against the appellant which concluded by an order dated 27th September 2013 passed by the Estate Officer, South Eastern Railway, Dhanbad. By this order, the appellant was declared an unauthorized occupant and accordingly directed to be evicted. The appeal preferred by the appellant against the order of the Estate Officer, South Eastern Railway vide Misc. Appeal No. 64 of 2013 has been dismissed by the District Judge-XII, Dhanbad on 18th July 2016. 5. W.P(C) No.4333 of 2016 has been filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. However, we do not find any reference regarding violation of any statutory right of the appellant so as to entertain the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The writ petition filed by the appellant was necessarily under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 6. In “Radhey Shyam v. Chhabi Nath” (2015) 5 SCC 423, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under: “29.1. Judicial orders of the civil court are not amenable to writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. 29.2. Jurisdiction under Article 227 is distinct from jurisdiction under Article 226.” 7. In “Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Nandini J. Shah & Ors.” (2018) 15 SCC 356 the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that against an order passed by a Single Judge adjudicating legality of an order under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971 intra-Court appeal shall not lie. In “Nandini J. Shah”, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as 8. under: “14. On the question of maintainability of the letters patent appeal, the Division Bench of the High Court answered the same in the following words : (Nandini J. Shah case , SCC OnLine Bom paras 13- 15) “13. Firstly we will deal with the contention regarding maintainability of this letters patent appeal. The learned counsel for the respondents urged that earlier writ petitions challenging the orders passed in proceedings under the Public Premises Act were being entertained by the Division Bench and after the decision of the Full Bench of this Court in Prakash Securities (P) Ltd. v. LIC dated 26-4-2012, they are now being placed before the Single Judge. He contended that if the 3 L.P.A No.147 of 2019 appeal is entertained from the orders passed by the learned Single Judge in such petitions, then the object of amending rules for hearing of such petitions by the Single Judge for expeditious disposal will be lost. The learned counsel for the appellants on the other hand has drawn our attention to the memo of the petition and the impugned order of the learned Single Judge wherein it is mentioned that the petition is filed and was entertained under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, and contended that therefore the appeal is maintainable. 14. It is true that the petitions arising out of the order passed under the Public Premises Act were being heard by the Division Bench. This was being done due to observation of the Division Bench of this Court in Nusli Neville Wadia v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. However by an order dated 15-11-2011 another Division Bench of this Court expressed doubt about the correctness of the observation made in Nusli Neville Wadia and referred the issue as to whether the petitions arising out of the orders passed under the Public Premises Act should be heard by the Division Bench or Single Judge, to the Full Bench for consideration. The Full Bench in Prakash Securities found that clause (3) of Rule 18 of Chapter XVII of the Bombay High Court Appellate Side Rules, 1960 was wide enough to include orders passed by any quasi-judicial authority under any enactment, even if such explanation is not covered by clauses (1), (2), (4) to (43) of Rule 18. The Full Bench found that the order passed by quasi-judicial authority under the Public Premises Act is also covered by Rule 18(3) so as to indicate that the petitions under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India challenging such orders are to be heard and decided by the Single Judge. Reference was accordingly disposed of by the Full Bench by its judgment dated 26-4-2012. The Full Bench held that the Appellate Side Rules as they stand, provide that the petitions challenging the orders passed under the Public Premises Act are required to be heard by the learned Single Judge and therefore the observations made in Nusli Neville Wadia were not correct. The petitions relating to orders passed under the Public Premises Act were being entertained by the Division Bench when the rules provided that they should be entertained by the Single Judge. Therefore there was no conscious decision to remove the petitions arising from orders passed under the Public Premises Act, from the Division Bench and to place them before the Single Judge. In fact the Full Bench found that these petitions were being wrongly entertained by the Division Bench. 15. In the judgment of the Full Bench there is no indication that letters patent appeal arising out of the orders passed by the Single Judge in proceedings under the Public Premises Act will not be maintainable. If letters patent appeals are otherwise maintainable, the judgment of the Full Bench does not take away that right in respect of petitions challenging the orders passed under the Public Premises Act. Therefore the argument advanced by the learned counsel on maintainability of the appeal on this ground cannot be accepted. Maintainability was not contested on any other ground. In the present case, the petitioner has invoked both Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. The learned Judge also has referred to the said articles in the impugned order. Furthermore, the respondent Corporation is itself amenable to writ jurisdiction of this Court, being a public corporation. There is therefore no substance in the preliminary objection raised by the learned counsel for the respondent that the appeal is not maintainable and that it should be dismissed at the threshold without looking at the merits of the matter.” 9. Having regard to the position in law as declared by the Hon'ble 4 L.P.A No.147 of 2019 Supreme Court in “Radhey Shyam” and “Nandini J. Shah”, the present Letters Patent Appeal is held not maintainable and, accordingly, L.P.A No.147 of 2019 is dismissed as such. (Shree Chandrashekhar, J.) (Ratnaker Bhengra, J.) Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi Dated : 14th June 2023 sudhir/N.A.F.R.