Dismissed

Hari Nandan Prasad Singh v. Steel Authority of India Limit

Jharkhand HC8 Apr 2024WPC/6329/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging non-allotment of a shop. The petitioner sought mandatory relief to allot a specific shop site claimed to be held since 1974. The court found no subsisting legal right or public law duty enforceable by mandamus for allotment.

What did the court decide?

Direction for allotment of shop dismissed; prayer in I.A. for amendment incorporated into main petition.

Hari Nandan Prasad Singh Vs Steel… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Jharkhand HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W. P. (C) No. 6329 of 2009

¶2

¶3

Hari Nandan Prasad Singh

¶4

… …. Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

1.Steel Authority of India Ltd., New Delhi through its Chairman.

¶7

2.Bokaro Steel Plant, a Unit of the Steel Authority of India Limited, Bokaro Steel City, Bokaro.

¶8

3.Managing Director, Bokaro Steel Plant, Bokaro

¶9

4.General Manager, Town Service, Bokaro Steel Plant, Bokaro.

¶10

5.General Manager, Human Resources Development, Bokaro Steel City, Bokaro. … …. Respondents

¶11

… …. Respondents

¶12

¶13

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY

¶14

----For the Petitioner : Mr. A.K. Sahani, Advocate For the SAIL : Mr. Indrajit Sinha, Advocate Mr. Bibhash Sinha, Advocate -----

¶15

Oral Order

¶16

18 / Dated : 08.04.2024.

¶17

Heard, learned counsel for the petitioner on I.A. No.1543 of 2011 filed under Order VI Rule 17 CPC read with Article 226 of the Constitution of India for amendment in the main Writ Petition so as to bring on record the notice of eviction issued by the Estate Officer, Bokaro Steel City and also in view of the fact that the eviction of the petitioner will depend upon the final outcome of the Writ Petition.

¶18

The prayer made in the said I.A. shall be part of the main Writ Petition.

¶19

W. P. (C) No. 6329 of 2009.

¶20

The instant writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for direction upon the respondents to issue allotment letter in respect of shop running in Dhundibad Market situated at Bokaro Steel City, Bokaro which is claimed to be there since 1974.

¶21

The petitioner is running a shop of food grain (rice) in the said market under Public Distribution System with valid license since the year 1993. Direction has also been sought for restraining the respondent authority from demolishing structures without examining the claims of the members of the said Association.

¶22

Earlier writ petition being CWJC No. 1553 of 1998(R) was filed on behalf of Dhundibad Dokandar Kalyan Samiti to restrain the respondents Company from demolishing the structures which was dismissed with an observation, that if an individual member comes with specific allegation and others such a plot number

¶23

¶24

and proposed are to be demolished and details then it can be considered on its own merit.

¶25

Another shop keeper Arun Pratap Singh filed CWJC No. 1706 of 1998(R) which was also disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to file representation before the respondent authorities.

¶26

CWJC No. 3209 of 1998R which was disposed of on 17.02.2000 with direction to the petitioner to file fresh representation before respondent no. 3 along with documents. In compliance to said direction, on 25.11.2002 a meeting was held under the Chairmanship of Deputy Commissioner, Bokaro and between the representatives of the Management of the Company and Association of shop keepers of Dhundibad Bazar. In the said meeting, it was, inter alia, held that the steps for allotment of shops to the shop keepers as per list to be made in terms of the conditions mentioned therein. Minutes of meeting was communicated to the Deputy Commissioner, Bokaro vide Memo No. 476 dated 26.11.2002.

¶27

It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that as per paras 9, 10 and 11 of the Minutes it was resolved that the provision of 85 shops was to be made for the whole sellers and construction will be made for their shops under the standard map, whereas steel structures will be constructed for small venders. No step has been taken for allotment of construction to those shops as resolved.

¶28

Despite his representation for allotment dated 08.09.2008 on behalf of shop keeper Association, no allotment was made. Hence this writ petition.

¶29

In the meantime, steps were taken by the respondents Committee for initiating a proceeding under the Public Premises Act in A/E Case No. 102/2011 by which notice was issued to the petitioner in which the petitioner submitted his show cause before the Estate Officer, Bokaro Steel City, Bokaro.

¶30

Case of the respondent is that a rural hatt for vegetables in Dhundibad being held three days a week has been sought to be projected as a market, wherein allotment of shop has been claimed. Company has already allotted constructed small shops in every neighbourhood and has also allotted land on lease for construction of building and running different commercial business. The area in which allotment is being sought for lies in the extension plan of the Aerodrome, the extension program of which is under consideration. The area being near to the flying zone, it will be hazardous and unsafe to permit construction of marketing area.

¶31

The land belongs to the company and at no point of time land was allotted to the petitioners. No valid license has been given to the petitioner for the land utilisation and no fees has been collected in this regard.

¶32

¶33

It is argued by the learned counsel on behalf of the respondent that there is no evidence of license lease made in favour of petitioners. Annexure-3 is tolls collected from the vehicles which is clear from annexure-5 which are specifically makes reference to collection of tolls.

¶34

With regard to the minutes of the meeting held on 25.11.2002 two under the chairmanship of the deputy Commissioner Bokaro wherein resolutions were made approving the proposal for construction of 85 shops for the wholesalers, it is argued that the Deputy Commissioner had no authority to pass such an order.

¶35

Having considered the submissions advanced on behalf of both sides and the materials on record the central issue before this Court is whether a Writ in the nature of mandamus can be passed against the respondent authorities for allotment of shop in favour of the petitioner.

¶36

Law is settled that mandamus is an extraordinary legal remedy reserved for extraordinary emergencies, being a supplementary means of obtaining substantial justice. There should be subsistence of any existing right in favour the petitioner so as to direct the defendant to perform a public law duty that has been imposed by law. Mandamus will not lie if the authority had complete discretion whether to act or not.

¶37

In the present case petitioner has failed to show any subsisting legal right for directing the respondent company for allotment of shops in their favour. The deputy Commissioner had no authority in this regard for directing construction of shops in the land of the Company. It has been pleaded on behalf of the respondent company that sufficient numbers of shops and commercial establishments have been allotted on lease basis, which sufficiently caters to the need of the company and its employees. Other developments have also been brought on record regarding proposal for expansion of the existing aerodrome so that regular civil air services can be started.

¶38

Under the aforesaid facts and circumstance, this court is of the view that the writ petition is not merited and is accordingly dismissed.

¶39

I.A(s)., if any, stands disposed of.

¶40

(Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J.)

¶41

AKT/Sandeep

¶42

Uploaded.

¶43

Hari Nandan Prasad Singh v. Steel Authority of India Limit

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hari Nandan Prasad Singh v. Steel Authority of India Limit

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

Mahtab Alam Vs The State Of Jharkhand

Munshi Lal Mahto Alias Babu Lal Mahto Vs The State Of Jharkhand

Jishu Murmu Vs State of Jharkhand

Dharamdeo Oraon And Ors. Vs National Insurance Company And a

Badal Devi And Ors. Vs State of Jharkhand And Ors.

Kanti Devi And Anr. Vs Jharkhand State Housing Board