Dismissed

Jitendra Pandey v. Steel Authority of India Limited / Bokaro Steel Plant and Anr.

Jharkhand HC4 Aug 2016WPC/7329/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Jharkhand dismissed a public interest litigation challenging an eviction order under the Public Premises Act. The court held that since the original allottee was declared an unauthorized occupant with their rights cancelled, the petitioner had no lawful claim to the property, and no satisfaction of jurisdiction under Article 226 was found.

What did the court decide?

Interim order dated 30.03.2012 is vacated; I.A. No. 968/2016 is closed; Writ petition is dismissed.

Jitendra Pandey Vs Steel Authority of India Limited /… — Landlord and Tenant | Jharkhand HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P. (C) No. 7329 of 2011

¶2

Jitendra Pandey -------Petitioner

¶3

Versus

¶4

Steel Authority of India Limited / Bokaro Steel Plant through the Managing Director, Bokaro Steel Plant

¶5

Bokaro Steel City Central Consumers Co-operative Stores Limited through the Administrator --- ----- Respondents

¶6

CORAM: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh

¶7

For the Petitioner: Mr. Pradeep Kr. Deomani, Advocate For the Resp - SAIL: M/s Rajiv Ranjan, Sr. Advocate, Shresth Gautam, Advocate

¶8

¶9

06/ 04.08.2016 Heard counsel for the parties.

¶10

Petitioner has assailed the judgment dated 24.10.2011 passed by the learned Principal District Judge, Bokaro in Miscellaneous Appeal No. 10/2011, whereunder the order dated 08.06.2011 passed by the learned Estate Officer, Bokaro Steel City in Case No. A/E-135/2003 under the provisions of Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971 ( hereinafter to be referred as 'Act of 1971') has been upheld. The petitioner has been directed to vacate the Quarter No. XII/C/E/2207 and pay damages at the rate of Rs. 2050/- with effect from 01.02.2002 till the date of vacation of quarters plus electricity and other charges with simple interest thereon @10% per annum.

¶11

The undisputed facts of the case are that the petitioner had occupied the said quarter on 25.05.1985 of M/s Bokaro Steel Consumer Co-operative Stores Ltd. who had been given allotment by the Respondent Bokaro Steel Plant vide Allotment order dated 22.05.1985 for running its business. Petitioner was residing in the said quarters. M/s Bokaro Steel Consumer Co-operative Stores Ltd shut down its business and was asked to vacate the possession of the said quarters by the Respondent Bokaro Steel Plant on 20.10.2001. On failure to do so, it was declared as unauthorized occupant with effect from 01.02.2002 under the provisions of the Act of 1971. It is also not in dispute that the employee of Bokaro Steel Consumer Co-operative Stores Ltd. raised a dispute claiming absorption through its Trade Union before the Hon'ble Patna High Court which ultimately went to the Apex Court in Civil Appeal no. 4919/2004. Though an order of stay of eviction from the quarters

¶12

¶13

and other premises allotted to Bokaro Steel Consumer Co-operative Stores Ltd. was passed at the first instance by the Apex Court, but vide order dated 26.08.2009, the appeal was dismissed with a liberty to the Union to raise an industrial dispute before the appropriate forum with regard to the question of absorption. That industrial dispute is said to be still pending before the learned Labour Court, Bokaro.

¶14

In the factual matrix, noticed hereinabove, and has been referred to in the impugned order as well, petitioner has not been able to show any lawful right to remain in possession of the quarters in question after the original allottee i.e. M/s Bokaro Steel Consumer Co-operative Stores Ltd. was itself declared as unauthorized occupant and whose allotment was also cancelled. No further substantial grounds have been urged on behalf of the petitioner to question the correctness of findings rendered by the learned Principal District Judge, Bokaro in the impugned judgment. 5. Upon consideration of the entire factual matrix of the case and on scrutiny of the impugned judgment also, no legal or factual infirmity is found warranting interference under Article 226 of Constitution of India. Writ petition is accordingly dismissed. Interim order dated 30.03.2012 stands vacated. I.A. No. 968/2016 stands closed.

¶15

( Aparesh Kumar Singh, J )

¶16

Ranjeet/

Jitendra Pandey v. Steel Authority of India Limited / Bokaro Steel Plant and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jitendra Pandey v. Steel Authority of India Limited / Bokaro Steel Plant and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S Edipee Synthetics P Limi Vs Bihar State Financial Corporat

Ms R K Products Company through Its Authorized Signatory Jitendra Kumar Chourasiya Vs the Union of India through the Cabinet Secretary

Gopal Chandra Oraon Vs the State of Jharkhand and Ors.

Supreme Infrastructure India Limited Through Its Deputy General Manager Cum Authorized Signatory Vs Road Construction

Sunil Kumar Choudhary Vs Drinking Water and Sanitation

Supreme Infrastructure India Limited Through Its Deputy General Manager Cum Authorized Signatory Vs The Union Of India Through Its Secretary Ministry Of Road Transport And Highways And Ors.