Union of India v. Prasad, Sr. Deputy General Manager, (Law) -cum- Estate Officer , HEC Ltd & Ors.

Union of India 2. The Director of State, Ministry of Urban Development, Government of India, New Delhi- 11 3. The Director, Heavy Industries (In-Charge HEC Ltd.) Government of India, New Delhi. 4. Heavy Engineering Corporation Ltd. through its CMD, PO & PS Dhurwa, District-Ranchi 5. Estate Officer, HEC Ltd. PO & PS Dhurwa, District Ranchi 6. V. Prasad, Sr. Deputy General Manager, (Law) -cum- Estate Officer , HEC Ltd. PO & PS Dhurwa, District Ranchi ….. ….. Respondents/Respondents ------ CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RATNAKER BHENGRA For the Appellant ------- : Mr. Arun, Advocate Mr. Ashwini Sharan, Advocate For the HEC : Mr. Piyush Chitresh, Advocate -------

O R D E R 21 st March 2022 By Court: The appellant has suffered an order of eviction under section 5 of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971 passed by the Estate Officer, who was Senior Manager of Heavy Engineering Corporation Ltd. (in short, HEC) and the said order was affirmed by the appellate authority vide order dated 13th August 2009 passed in Miscellaneous Appeal No. 01 of 2009.

The aforesaid orders were challenged by the appellant in WP(C) No. 4231 of 2009 which was dismissed by an order dated 16th July 2014.

By that time, the appellant superannuated from service with effect from 31st December 2006 while working on the post of Chief Medical Officer with HEC.

Mr. Piyush Chitresh, the learned counsel for HEC, raises a question on maintainability of the present Letters Patent Appeal with reference to the judgment in “Life Insurance Corporation v. Nandini J. Shah and others” (2018) 15 SCC 356 which was followed by a Full Bench of this 2 LPA No. 305 of 2014 Court in LPA No. 312 of 2004.

In LPA No.196 of 2021, which was filed by M/s Hindustan Auto Agency, a similar plea on maintainability of Letters Patent Appeal filed against the order passed under section 9 of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act 1971 has been dealt with by a Division Bench of this Court with reference to the judgment in “Life Insurance Corporation” and the order passed in LPA No. 312 of 2004.

In LPA No. 312 of 2004, a Full Bench of this Court has held as under: “12. From the decisions of the Supreme Court aforementioned, it is clear that if a Single Judge exercises jurisdiction under Article 226 as well as both under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, against such judgment, letters patent appeal under clause-10 shall lie before this Court. On the other hand, if learned Single Judge exercises his jurisdiction only under Article 227 of the Constitution, letters patent appeal under clause-10 would not be maintainable against such judgment before a Division Bench of this Court. 13. From the writ petition, W.P.(C) No.1341 of 2004 preferred by appellant “Swapan Kumar Bandopadhyay” (LPA 312/2004), it is evident that the said application was preferred only under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, whereas the appellant “Doman Mahato” (LPA 393/2004) had filed writ petition, W.P.(C) No.3612 of 2003 under Article 226 of Constitution, but the learned Single Judge passed the impugned order in exercise of his jurisdiction under Article 227 of Constitution of India. 14. In the circumstances, both the appeals filed under Clause-10 of the Letter Patent against the order(s) passed under Article 227 of Constitution are not maintainable. The question, as raised in these appeals is, accordingly, answered in negative and against the appellants. Both the appeals are, accordingly, dismissed. However, in the facts and circumstances, there shall be no order, as to costs.”

The learned counsel for the respondents has not even attempted to distinguish the judgments rendered by Full Bench/ Division Bench of this Court in the aforesaid Letters Patent Appeals and, therefore, we are not inclined to examine various provisions under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971 as indicated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in “Jogendrasinhji Vijaysinghji v. State of Gujarat and others” (2015) 9 SCC 1 to find out the real nature of the appellate order dated 13th August

2009. Moreover, the judgment by the Full Bench of this Court is binding on us. In “Dega Venkata Harsha Vardhan v. Akula Ventaka Harshavardhan” (2019) 12 SCC 735 the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that a judgment of the Full Bench is binding on the Division Bench.

Accordingly, we follow the judgments of this Court rendered in 3 LPA No. 305 of 2014 LPA Nos. 312 of 2004, 524 of 2018 and 196 of 2021 to hold that the present Letters Patent Appeal is not maintainable which is dismissed, as such. However, the appellant shall have recourse to any other remedy as available to him in law. (Shree Chandrashekhar, J.) (Ratnaker Bhengra, J.) The High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi Dated: 21st March 2022 Soumya/Nibha-NAFR