Allowed

Raju Pandit Alias Raj Kumar Pandey v. the State of Jharkhand and Anr.

Jharkhand HC8 Aug 2019WPC/6841/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court quashed the Principal District Judge's order dismissing an appeal due to delay. The Court condoned the delay, finding a justifiable cause related to jurisdictional confusion, and directed the appellate court to conclude the appeal within four weeks.

What did the court decide?

The order dismissing the appeal dated 24.09.2013 is quashed; delay is condoned; the Principal District Judge is directed to conclude the appeal within four weeks.

Raju Pandit Alias Raj Kumar Pandey Vs the… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Jharkhand HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(C) No. 6841 of 2013

¶2

Raju Pandit @ Raj Kumar Pandey, S/o Late Mahavir Pandey, R/o Gopalichak 2 no., P.O. Kusunda, P.S. Pootki, District Dhanbad. … … Petitioner

¶3

Versus

¶4

1. The State of Jharkhand.

¶5

2. The Project Officer, Bharat Coking Coal Ltd., P.B. Area, Gopalichak Colliery, P.O. & P.S. Kusunda, District Dhanbad. ... … Respondents

¶6

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY

¶7

For the Petitioner : Mr. L.G.R.N. Shahdeo, Adv. For the Resp. No. 2. : Mr. Anoop Kr. Mehta, Adv.

¶8

06/08.08.2019 Heard Mr. L.G.R.N. Shahdeo, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Anoop Kr. Mehta, learned counsel appearing for the respondent no. 2.

¶9

In this writ application, the petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 01.07.2013 passed by the Estate Officer, Bharat Coking Coal Ltd., P.B. Area, Dhanbad (respondent no. 2) in Eviction Case No. 447/2012, by which the petitioner has been directed to be evicted from the quarter which was in his occupation. The petitioner is further aggrieved by the order dated 24.09.2013 passed by the learned Principal District Judge, Dhanbad in Misc. Appeal No. 53/2013 in which the appeal has been dismissed on the ground of limitation.

¶10

The respondent no. 2 had initiated a proceeding against several unauthorized occupants in Eviction Case No. 447/12 and by order dated 01.07.2013 they were directed to handover vacant possession to M/s. BCCL. The name of the petitioner figured at serial no. 14 in the list appended to the impugned order which had been passed in Eviction Case No. 432/2012. The petitioner had preferred an appeal in terms of Section 9 of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971 and since

¶11

-2-

¶12

there was a delay in preferring the appeal the same was dismissed on 24.09.2013 by the learned Principal District Judge, Dhanbad.

¶13

It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that earlier an order was passed in Case No. 89/08 in which there was a direction on 24.04.2012 wherein it was directed that since the case is under the jurisdiction of Jharia Rehabilitation and Development Authority as such the case file be kept for final order till the decision is taken by the JRDA. It has been submitted that in spite of the said order dated 24.04.2012 the eviction order has been passed against the petitioner in a separate proceeding instituted under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act. Learned counsel further submits that although sufficient explanation has been given by the petitioner while preferring an appeal but the same has not been properly considered by the learned Principal District Judge, Dhanbad.

¶14

Mr. Anoop Kr. Mehta, learned counsel appearing for the respondent no. 2 has opposed the prayer made by the petitioner and has stated that the petitioner had occupied the quarter in question without any valid allotment order and therefore the order of eviction has rightly been passed by the Estate Officer.

¶15

It appears that the limitation for preferring an appeal against an order passed for eviction by the Estate Officer under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971 is 12 days under Section 9 of the said Act. The impugned order of the Estate Officer is dated 01.07.2013 and the petitioner has taken a plea that on account of unavoidable circumstances he could not apply for the certified copy and after some time the same was received by him on 20.07.2013 and thereafter the appeal

¶16

-3-

¶17

was preferred. The delay therefore appears to be of about 25 days in preferring the appeal. The learned Principal District Judge, Dhanbad has not considered the fact that the order in Eviction Case No. 432/2012 was passed in the case of one Bijoy Singh and it was indicated that the said order shall be applicable to the persons the list of which has been appended to the impugned order and which included the petitioner as his name finds place at serial no. 14. Therefore there appears to be a justifiable cause for the petitioner to have preferred the appeal beyond the period of limitation and the explanation which has been submitted by the petitioner should have been accepted by the learned Appellate Court.

¶18

In view of the aforesaid, therefore, the impugned order dated 24.09.2013 passed by the learned Principal District Judge, Dhanbad in Misc. Appeal No. 53/2013 is hereby quashed and set aside. The delay in preferring the appeal is condoned. The learned Principal District Judge, Dhanbad is directed to proceed in the appeal after giving an opportunity of hearing to the respective parties and conclude the same within a period of four weeks.

¶19

This writ application stands disposed of with the aforementioned observations.

¶20

(R. Mukhopadhyay, J.)

¶21

Alok/-

Raju Pandit Alias Raj Kumar Pandey v. the State of Jharkhand and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Raju Pandit Alias Raj Kumar Pandey v. the State of Jharkhand 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

Ragho Singh Vs the State of Jharkhand through the Chief Secretary and Ors.

Jagdish Prasad Singh Vs Jharkhand State Housing Board

Baraik Manohar Singh Vs Yamuna Devi and Anr.

Bijay Kumar Jaiswal Vs State of Jharkhand And Ors.

Chhedilal Poddar Vs Jadu Mahto

Rita Mishra Vs the State of Jharkhand through Secretary Housing and Urban Development Department and Ors.