Dismissed

Bijay Nath Verma v. The Sail Bokaro Steel Plant Through Its Chief Executive Officer And Ors.

Jharkhand HC19 Jun 2019WPC/7196/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A writ petition challenging the dismissal of an application to regularize unauthorized construction in a allotted quarter. The court rejected the claim of hostile discrimination, held that positing equality does not protect illegal acts, and dismissed the petition stating it is for the authority to decide on condonation of deviation.

What the court decided

AI extract

Bijay Nath Verma Vs The Sail Bokaro Steel… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Jharkhand HC (2019)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(C) No.7196 of 2017

¶3

Bijay Nath Verma, Son of Late Bhagwati Prasad, Resident of house No.29, Sector-III A, Bokaro Steel City, P.O. & P.S.-Bokaro Steel City, Dist.-Bokaro, Jharkhand.

¶4

…… Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

The SAIL/Bokaro Steel Plant through its Chief Executive Officer, SAIL/Bokaro Steel Plant, P.O. & P.S. Bokaro Steel City, Dist. Bokaro.

¶7

The SAIL/Bokaro Steel Plant through its Chief Executive Director, SAIL/Bokaro Steel Plant, P.O. & P.S. Bokaro Steel City, Dist. Bokaro. 3. The SAIL/Bokaro Steel Plant through General Manager (Personnel), SAIL/Bokaro Steel Plant, P.O. & P.S. Bokaro Steel City, Dist. Bokaro. 4. The Estate Officer, Bokaro Steel City, P.O. & P.S. Bokaro Steel City, Dist.-Bokaro.

¶8

…… Respondents

¶9

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD

¶10

For the Petitioner : Mr. Sarvesh Kr. Verma, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. Vijay Kant Dubey, Advocate

¶11

07 / Dated 19th June, 2019

¶12

This writ petition is under Article 226 of the Constitution of India whereby and whereunder vide order dated 27.06.2017 (Annexure-10), the representation filed by the petitioner dated 17.03.2017 in pursuance to the order passed by the Principal District Judge, Bokaro in Civil (Misc.) Appeal No.13 of 2016 has been rejected.

¶13

The brief facts of the case of the petitioner is that the petitioner has been allotted the quarter in pursuance to the lease of agreement dated 21^st day of January 2002 (Annexure-4) wherein certain terms and conditions have been incorporated, one of the conditions is that there will be no alteration or addition in the construction already made, save and except, the permission of the authority and in case of violation of the said terms and conditions the lease would be liable for

¶14

¶15

termination as would be evident from condition No.2(xiii) to the lease of agreement (page 60).

¶16

The petitioner has constructed a garage initially against which the objection has been made by the competent authority but the same has been regularized by the competent authority considering that the extension was made within the permissible limit but again construction has been made, but this time two rooms have been constructed over the roof of the first floor and therefore, a proceeding has been initiated by the authority under the provision of sub-section (2) of Section 5(A) of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971 wherein the order has been passed for removal of the said construction in the said quarter and with a direction to pay sum of Rs.10,000/- only as a cost of removal, against which the appeal has been preferred before the Principal District Judge, Bokaro being Civil (Misc.) Appeal No.13 of 2016 which was disposed of vide order dated 09^th January, 2017 with a observation that it will be open for the petitioner to make application before the competent authority for regularization of the deviation to be permissible.

¶17

In pursuance to the said observation the petitioner has made representation on 17.03.2017 (Annexure-9) which has been dealt with by the authority vide order dated 27.06.2017 by rejecting it.

¶18

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted while assailing the aforesaid order that the others have been allowed to make construction which is also not within the permissible limit but when he has made construction over the quarter, the same has been objected against which a proceeding has been initiated therefore, the petitioner has been subjected to hostile discrimination which is directly in the teeth of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

¶19

Mr. Vijay Kant Dubey, learned counsel appearing for the Bokaro Steel Limited has submitted by referring to the impugned order passed by the appellate forum whereby and whereunder the appeal has been dismissed on merit, however, with a liberty that if the condonation of construction already made is permissible, the same can be considered

¶20

¶21

by the authority and in the light of the same when the petitioner has made an application, the same has been dismissed, as such, the same suffers from no infirmity.

¶22

So far as the contention of the petitioner that he has been subjected to hostile discrimination, his argument is that the Article 14 envisages positive equality and not the negative equality, therefore, the said argument is not worth to be considered.

¶23

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on appreciation of their rival submissions, it is evident that the petitioner has made construction of two rooms over the first floor of quarter which has been allotted in favour of the petitioner by virtue of an agreement, as referred, which contains a condition of making no construction as would be evident from Clause 2(xiii) of the agreement.

¶24

It is the admitted case of the petitioner that the construction has been made contrary to the terms and conditions of the agreement which is within the permissible limit.

¶25

The further contention has been raised that the others have been allowed to do so, therefore, taking action against him is not proper.

¶26

The petitioner's main contention is regarding subjecting him to hostile discrimination which would be in the teeth of Article 14 of the Constitution of India, now the question would be as to whether the Article 14 envisages negative equality, that cannot be, it is for the reason that if illegal doer would be allowed to do illegality then rule of law would not prevail that is the reason Article 14 envisages positive equality, meaning thereby, if the legal right has been given to a person and others have been deprived of, the person who has been deprived of from the said legal right will have a right to question that why he has been discriminated and then only it will be said to be hostile discrimination but that is not the case herein.

¶27

The petitioner, although, has taken plea that others have been allowed to do so but the action of negative equality would come,

¶28

¶29

however, it is being reflected from the impugned order against the persons who have been allowed to do so, the litigation are pending.

¶30

In view thereof and taking into consideration the specific terms and conditions in the agreement under Clause 2(xiii) and also considering the fact that as to whether the deviation can be condoned or not which is the subject matter to be decided by the competent authority not by the writ Court, therefore, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the decision taken by the authority contained in the communication dated 27.06.2017.

¶31

In view of the reasons and observation made hereinabove, the writ petition fails and is dismissed.

¶32

(Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.)

¶33

Saurabh

Bijay Nath Verma v. The Sail Bokaro Steel Plant Through Its Chief Executive Officer And Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Bijay Nath Verma v. The Sail Bokaro Steel Plant Through Its Chief Executive Officer And Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Harun Rasid Vs Sahjogni Devi

Gulo Yadav Vs Gourishankar Yadav

Babita Kumari Vs the State of Jharkhand through the Deputy Commissioner

Triveni Das Vs The State Of Jharkhand And Ors.

Gita Devi Vs Land Reforms And Revenue Department

Taslim Mian And Ors. Vs The State Of Jharkhand And Ors.