Dismissed

Gouri Shankar Jain v. the Union of India through the Ministry of Railways

Jharkhand HC12 Oct 2020LPA/524/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed an intra-court appeal filed against an order passed by the Principal District Judge under Section 9 of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971. The court held the appeal was not maintainable as the order was judicial in nature and subject to Article 227.

What did the court decide?

The instant intra-court appeal is not maintainable and is dismissed.

Gouri Shankar Jain Vs the Union of… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Jharkhand HC (2020)

¶1

[1]

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶3

L.P.A. No.524 of 2018

¶4

Gouri Shankar Jain, son of Late Madanlal Jain, aged 71 years, R/o Rafi Ahmad Kidwai Road, P.O. and P.S.: Ballygunj, Town-Kolkata, District:Kolkata, West Bengal.

¶5

. …Petitioner/Appellant

¶6

Versus

¶7

The Union of India through the Ministry of Railways, Rail Bhawan, Raisina Road, Rajpath Area, Central Secretariat, P.O.: Rail Bhawan, P.S.: Central Secretariat, District-New Delhi, New Delhi.

¶8

The General Manager, Eastern Railways, 17, Netaji Subhash Road, P.O. & P.S.: Burrabazar, town: Kolkata, District: Kolkata, West Bengal.

¶9

The Divisional Railway Manager, Eastern Railways, P.O. & P.S.: Malda, town: Malda, District: Malda, State: West Bengal.

¶10

The Estate Officer, Divisional Officer, Eastern Railways, P.O. & P.S.: Malda, town: Malda, District: Malda, State: West Bengal.

¶11

The Station Manager, Eastern Railway, Sahibganj, P.O. & P.S.: Sahibganj, District: Sahibganj, Jharkhand.

¶12

The Deputy Commissioner, Sahibganj, P.O. & P.S.: Sahibganj, District: Sahibganj, Jharkhand.

¶13

The Superintendent of Police, Sahibganj, P.O. & P.S. Sahibganj, District: Sahibganj, Jharkhand.

¶14

… Respondents/Respondents

¶15

¶16

CORAM: HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD

¶17

------For the Appellant : Mr. Amit Kumar Das, Advocate For the Res.-Railways : Mr. Gautam Rakesh, Advocate For the Res.-State : AC to Sr. SC-III ----------------------------

¶18

[2]

¶19

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶20

15 / Dated 12^th October, 2020

¶21

The matter has been heard through video conferencing with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties. They have no complaint about any audio and visual quality.

¶22

This appeal has been preferred against the order/judgment dated 29.06.2018 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.(C) No.867 of 2018 by which the order dated 17.01.2018 passed by the Principal District Judge, Sahibganj, in Civil Misc. Appeal No.03 of 2013 whereby and whereunder the appeal preferred by the writ petitioner under Section 9 of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971, hereinafter referred to as the Act, 1971, has been declined to be interfered with by dismissing the writ petition.

¶23

The instant appeal was heard and an issue has been raised about maintainability of the instant intra-court appeal on the ground that the order passed by the Principal District judge in exercise of power conferred under Section 9 of the Act, 1971 was the subject matter before the writ Court, and as such, the matter was adjourned vide order dated 28.09.2020 giving an opportunity to the learned counsel for the appellant to make his submission on the point of the maintainability of the appeal.

¶24

Mr. Amit Kumar Das, learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the instant appeal is maintainable since the order passed by the Estate Officer under Section 6 of the Act, 1971 was the subject matter before the appellate forum as under Section 9 of

¶25

[3]

¶26

the Act, 1971, as such, the nature of the order since under challenge before the appellate authority is quasi-judicial, therefore, the instant intra-court appeal will lie.

¶27

Mr. Gautam Rakesh, learned counsel for the respondent-Railways has opposed the aforesaid submission/ground on the ground that the instant intra-court appeal will not be maintainable since the order passed by the appellate authority in exercise of power conferred under Section 9 of the Act, 1971, who is the Principal District Judge, as such, he since has exercised the power in the capacity of judicial officer, therefore, the order passed by the appellate forum will be treated to be a judicial order and hence, the intra-court appeal will not be maintainable.

¶28

Learned counsel for the respondent-Railways has relied upon a judgment rendered by Hon'ble Apex Court in Life Insurance Corporation of India vs. Nandini J. Shah and Others, (2018) 15 SCC 356 .

¶29

We, having heard learned counsel for the parties on the issue of maintainability of the instant intra-court appeal and after going through the pleading made in the writ petition, have found therefrom that the order passed by the Principal District Judge in exercise of power conferred under Section 9 of the Act, 1971 was the subject matter before the writ Court.

¶30

The Hon’ble Apex Court in Life Insurance Corporation of India vs. Nandini J. Shah and Others (supra) has laid down at paragraph-58 as hereunder:

¶31

[4]

¶32

“ 58. In other words, the Appellate Officer while exercising power under Section 9 of the 1971 Act, does not act as a persona designata but in his capacity as a pre-existing judicial authority in the district (being a District Judge or judicial officer possessing essential qualification designated by the District Judge). Being part of the district judiciary, the judge acts as a court and the order passed by him will be an order of the subordinate court against which remedy under Article 227 of the Constitution of India can be availed on the matters delineated for exercise of such jurisdiction.”

¶33

It is, thus, evident from the aforesaid ratio that the order passed by the appellate authority in exercise of power conferred under Section 9 of the Act, 1971 will be questioned before the forum having jurisdiction conferred under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

¶34

Here, it is relevant to refer the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Radhe Shyam and Anr. vs. Chhabi Nath and Others, (2015) 5 SCC 423 holding that against an order passed by a forum in exercise of power conferred under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, intra-court appeal will not lie since therein it has been laid down that the judicial order of the civil courts are not amenable to writ of certiorari under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

¶35

We, therefore, in view of the judgment rendered by Hon'ble Apex Court in Life Insurance Corporation of India vs. Nandini J. Shah and Others (supra) and Radhe Shyam and Anr. vs. Chhabi Nath and Others (supra), are of the considered view that the instant intracourt appeal is not maintainable.

¶36

In the result, the instant appeal stands dismissed on the ground of maintainability.

¶37

[5]

¶38

We have not entered into the merit of the matter and this order will not come in the way of the appellant in seeking remedy before the appropriate forum which would be available in law.

¶39

Pending interlocutory application(s), if any, also stands disposed of.

¶40

(Dr. Ravi Ranjan, C.J.)

¶41

(Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.)

¶42

Saurabh

¶43

A.F.R.

Gouri Shankar Jain v. the Union of India through the Ministry of Railways

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gouri Shankar Jain v. the Union of India through the Ministry of Railways

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shailesh Poddar Vs State of Jharkhand

MD Isak Vs the Ranchi Municipal Corporation through Municipal Commissioner

Sunil Kumar Roy Vs the State of Jharkhand

Surendra Nath Singh Vs Ms Bharat Coking Coal Represented through Managing Director

Tarapado Dhiwar Vs the State of Jharkhand

Mathura Prasad Barnwal Vs the State of Jharkhand through the Secretary Human Resources Development Deptt