The High Court · 2007
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P. (C) No. 4423 of 2007 --- Hirdya Nand Singh --- Versus --- ---- Petitioner The Bihar State Road Transport Corporation & others --- --- --- Respondents
Legal Reasoning
--- CORAM: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh For the Petitioner: Mr. Anil Kumar & Mr. Ashok Kumar, Advocate Mr. R. Mukhopadhyay, SC-II & For the State: Mr. Sunil Singh, JC to SC-II --- 04/ 18.01.2013 The petitioner is allowed to make correction in the array of
Decision
the respondents as after filing of the writ petition, the Jharkhand State Transport Department has stepped into the shoes of the Bihar State Road Transport Corporation as its successor. Heard counsel for the parties. 2. The petitioner is aggrieved by order dated 29th June 2007 passed by the Divisional Manager, Bihar State Road Transport Corporation, Bihar, Patna contained at annexure-4 asking him to deposit the arrears of rent amounting to Rs. 11,21,491.88 failing which he shall be evicted from the stall no. 4 of the bus depot near Overbridge at Ranchi. 3. Counsel for the petitioner, on the one hand, has relied upon the minutes of the decision contained at annexure-2 to suggest that the petitioner had been allowed to continue on the basis of the decision taken therein at a agreed rate of rent and was not an illegal tenant. However, on the other hand, from perusal of the statements made in paragraph-10 of the writ petition, it would appear that there are certain outstanding dues which has been admitted on the part of the petitioner as well. The petitioner's grievance is that he has been slapped with a huge amount of arrears of Rs. 11.00 lakh and odd which is wholly unreasonable and arbitrary. 4. Giving reply to the supplementary affidavit filed by the petitioner, counsel for the respondent State submits that the petitioner has been evicted from the said stall on 17th October 2011. Counsel for the petitioner however submits that the shop has been sealed way back in the year 2007 itself and the petitioner had even thereafter deposited the agreed rents till 2011 in respect of which certain receipts has also been annexed to the supplementary affidavit. It is further submitted on behalf of the respondents that the Division Bench of this court vide judgment dated 18th October 2011 passed in L.P.A. No. 879 of 2003 in the case of Mantu Kumar & anr. vs. Bihar State Road Transport Corporation through its Chairman, Patna (Bihar) & others, has directed the Transport Department to frame a policy in accordance with law in order to arrive at a proper decision relating to allotment of shops to the persons who either had been evicted or are continuing, however, on the determination of the reasonable and fair rent so that it does not cause loss to the Public Exchequer in the matter. Counsel for the petitioner however states that while the appellants in the said case were held to be illegally continuing, whereas the petitioner has a better case as he was allowed to continue under tenancy as per annexure-2. 5. Be that as it may, upon hearing the counsel for the parties, it appears that issue requires consideration at the level of the respondent department through the competent authority after taking into account the contention of the petitioner that he has been depositing rent till the year 2011 for the premises in question as also the judgment of the Division Bench of this court rendered in L.P.A. No. 879/2003 (Supra) wherein the department has also been allowed to arrive at a policy in accordance with law so far as allotment and re- allotment of shops to those who are either in possession or have been evicted. In this regard, relevant paragraphs of Division Bench judgment dated 18th October 2011 are quoted herein-below: “9. By the order dated 19.4.2001, the writ petition, C.W.J.C. No. 1548 of 2001, was, in fact, disposed of without deciding any issue of law and it has been observed that the petitioner shall deposit all the admitted rent of the shop, in question, within one month from the date of the order and shall go on depositing the annual rent within the time, in terms of the agreement, failing which the settlement, made in favour of the petitioner, shall stand cancelled. Therefore, we do not think that the judgment relied upon by the counsel for the appellants has any bearing on the point and the appellants have no right to continue in the suit premises. For the reasons mentioned above, we do not find any just reason to interfere with the impugned judgment. As such, this appeal is dismissed. 10. We may observe here that the Transport Department has not acted in the manner in which it should have acted and has caused serious loss to the State exchequer in allowing the illegal occupants to continue in occupation for such a long period. Today also we have not been shown any policy of the Transport Department in the matter of allotment of any land or shop for the benefit of the tourists who may need some facility in the Bus-stand. We are also not sure whether the said Department, after evicting those occupants, wants to reallot the shops and canteens to any other persons. The Transport Department need to take a decision and after taking a decision, if they decide to reallot and make these shops available to the applicants, then priority is required to be given to the persons who were in occupation as has been suggested by the Transport Commissioner but it must be on a reasonable and fair rent so as not to cause any loss to the State exchequer in the matter where the appellants will also be getting benefit of continuation of their business for their earnings. Therefore, the Transport Department will be free to frame a policy and thereafter, take a decision in accordance with the policy and shall try to take a proper decision so as to give benefit to the passengers who come to the Bus-stand and shall not think only the manner to oblige the traders and after taking a decision, they may reallot the premises according to the policy for which we are not giving any other guidelines as it is for the Transport Department itself to take a decision. Since the shops presently have been sealed, the shops shall not be alloted to any other persons till the decision is taken by the Transport Department and after taking decision, only the respondent Department may proceed in accordance with law. Such decision may be taken preferably within a period of two months so as to avoid any inconvenience to the occupants, if they are found to be entitled to reallotment of the land on any enhanced rent. 11. We are making it clear that we are not observing that the shops should be kept as they are. If, as per the decision of the Transport Department, shops are required to be demolished so as to construct new shops of standard size befitting to the present level of standard of the public, then these shops may be constructed of reasonable size but not of unreasonable size and thereafter they may proceed to take a decision for allotment to those very persons or to other persons according to their policy decisions. In case, the Department takes a decision to demolish the shops, the appellants shall be given liberty to take their belongings without causing any damage to the premises or property of any person.” 6. In these circumstances, the matter is remanded to the Transport Commissioner, Department of Transport, Government of Jharkhand for consideration of the case of the petitioner where he shall appear with a fresh representation within a period of two weeks along with a copy of this order containing all necessary facts and documents. If such a representation is made before the Transport Commissioner, Department of Transport, Government of Jharkhand or even otherwise, on receipt of the copy of this order, he shall proceed to act in accordance with law, so far as the grievance of the petitioner in respect of raising of the impugned demand against him as also the settlement of the shop is concerned, within a period of twelve weeks thereafter. terms. Ranjeet/ The writ petition stands disposed of in the aforesaid (Aparesh Kumar Singh, J)