Dismissed

Ibrahim v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC27 May 2019SAW/416/2019

Download

Case brief

from the order text

What is this about?

JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR D.B.…

What the court decided

AI extract

Ibrahim Vs State of Rajasthan — Rajasthan HC (2019) — LawSathi Research

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶2

D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 416/2019

¶3

Ibrahim S/o Late Saifiuddin Motorwala Grand Son of Rasool Bhai Abdul Hussain, Aged About 69 Years, Caste Bohara, Resident of Nai Abadi, Banswara, Rajasthan Presently At 24, Bohara, Pakal Airpur Distt. Dhar, M.p. India (Mob 9425413143)

¶4

----Appellant

¶5

Versus

¶6

State Of Rajasthan, Through Chief Secretary, Government of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.

¶7

Secretary In-Charge, Power & Energy Department, Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur.

¶8

Ajmer Vidhut Vitran Nigam Ltd, Ajmer Through Its Managing Director, Ajmer.

¶9

----Respondents

¶10

For Appellant(s) : Mr. Mahendra Kumar Sharma

¶11

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANGEET LODHA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINIT KUMAR MATHUR

¶12

Judgment

¶13

27/05/2019

¶14

This intra court appeal is directed against order dated 6.3.19 passed by the learned Single Judge of this court, whereby the writ petition preferred by the appellant seeking directions to determine the compensation payable in respect of the assets of M/s. Banswara Electricity Supply Company, Banswara covered by arbitration award dated 30.9.78 (Annexure 7), in accordance with the provisions of Section 24 of Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (for short “the Act of 2013”), has been dismissed. The

¶15

(2 of 5)

¶16

[SAW-416/2019]

¶17

appellant had made a prayer for quashing the award dated 30.9.78, which also stands declined.

¶18

The writ petition preferred has been dismissed by the learned Single Judge observing that the challenge to the award passed in the year 1978, after a lapse of almost 42 years suffers from delay and laches and therefore, the writ petition cannot be entertained.

¶19

Learned counsel appearing for the appellant contended that delay in filing the writ petition by itself cannot defeat the legitimate claim of the appellant and thus, without examining the matter on merits, the learned Single Judge has seriously erred in dismissing the writ petition on the ground of delay and laches. Learned counsel submitted that the award passed was never made decree of the court and thus could not have been enforced. It is submitted that in view of Section 24 of the Act of 2013, the appellant is entitled for determination of the compensation for acquisition of the land, building and the equipments and thus, without examining this aspect of the matter, the learned Single Judge has erred in declining to entertain the writ petition.

¶20

We have considered the submissions of the learned counsel and perused the material on record. 5. It is noticed that Shri Rasool Bhoy Mulla Abdul Hussain Alirajpore Wala and Abdul Hussain Mohd. Ali Alirajpore Wala had been granted license to supply electricity in Banswara under the terms and conditions of the agreement dated 12.2.49 entered into between the Government of United State of Rajasthan and the licensees. The said licensees run a concern to carry out the purposes of the said license under the name and style of ‘Banswara Electric Supply Company at Banswara’. Under the

¶21

(3 of 5)

¶22

[SAW-416/2019]

¶23

agreement, the said licensees were bound to supply electricity for a period of 30 years. The licensees made an application to the State Government for revocation of the said license and the State Government in its turn in exercise of the power conferred by subsection (2) of Section 4 of Indian Electricity Act, 1910 revoked the aforesaid license of the said licensees w.e.f. 1.10.1964 on the terms and conditions specified, which read as under:

¶24

“(i) The licensee shall hand-over to the Board on 1.10.1964 the entire undertaking viz. Banswara Electric Supply Co. alongwith transmission lines and the distribution system, office building and serviceable stores and all other equipment concerning to the said Company.

¶25

(ii) The Board shall purchase the aforesaid undertaking of the licensee and the purchase price for them to be paid by the Board to the Company shall be determined in accordance with the provisions of sub section 1 and 2 of Section 7(A) of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910 provided that the price of such assets as are not taken into account for purpose of evaluation under sub section 2 of Section 7(A) of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910 shall be excluded from the price payable to the licensee.

¶26

(iii) In case of any dispute regarding purchase price between the Board and the licensee, the same shall be referred to the Arbitration and Central Electricity Authority (here the two parties for reasons best known to them departed by appointing arbitrators for proceeding in terms of the Arbitration Act).

¶27

(iv) No compensation shall be payable to the licensee in addition to the purchase price to be determined as above.

¶28

(v) The sale deed in respect to the assets sold to the Board shall be got registered and the expenses of stamps and registration shall be borne half by the Board and half by the licensee.

¶29

(vi) Interest at the Reserve Bank Rate at the time of delivery of the assets on the purchase price of the undertaking plus 1% shall be paid from the date of taking over to the date of payment of the purchase price. In case the Licensee refer the purchase price to the arbitration, the Board shall not be liable to pay interest for the duration of the arbitration on the amount which is payable according to the Board and which shall be offered to the licensee for its acceptance. If the CEA

¶30

(4 of 5)

¶31

[SAW-416/2019]

¶32

awarded higher price than offered by the Board, the interest on this difference shall be payable at the Rate specified therein.”

¶33

Pursuant to the Government order dated 28.9.1964, the said assets of the said undertaking were taken over by the Rajasthan State Electricity Board (RSEB) on 1.10.1964. The licensee Rasool Bhoy Mulla Abdul Hussain submitted a claim of Rs.7,04,870.13 as a value of the assets handed over to RSEB and claimed Rs.1,05,732.50 as 15% compensation totaling to Rs.8,10,602.63 to the Secretary, RSEB. The dispute having been arisen regarding the value of the assets and quantum of compensation, the matter was referred for determination to the Arbitrators as per terms and conditions agreed upon between the parties. The Arbitrators determined the value of the assets and compensation and passed the award dated 30.9.78.

¶34

It is pertinent to note that the party to the agreement Shri Rasool Bhoy Mulla Abdul Hussain Alirajpore Wala, the grand father of the appellant expired on 23.6.1975 and it is not even the case of the appellant that parties to the agreement Rasool Bhoy and Saifuddin had raised any grievance against the award by availing appropriate remedy available under the law. The contractual dispute arising between the parties to the agreement having already been adjudicated by the award dated 30.9.1978 passed by the Arbitrator, the petition preferred by the appellant, the grand son of Shri Rasool Bhoy, questioning the legality of the award after a lapse of about 42 years is absolutely baseless.

¶35

It is not understandable as to how in respect of the assets transferred under the agreement entered into between the parties and the dispute arising regarding the value thereof having been

¶36

(5 of 5)

¶37

[SAW-416/2019]

¶38

adjudicated by way of arbitration under the provisions of Arbitration Act,1940, without there being any proceedings for acquisition of the land under the law governing the acquisition of the land at the relevant time, the provisions of the Act of 2013 could be invoked in the matter.

¶39

To say the least, the petition filed besides suffering from inordinate delay and laches, is absolutely misconceived and devoid of any merit. In this view of the matter, the learned Single Judge has committed no error in dismissing the petition. No case for interference by us in intra court appeal jurisdiction is made out. 10. In the result, the appeal fails, it is hereby dismissed in limine.

¶40

(VINIT KUMAR MATHUR),J

¶41

(SANGEET LODHA),J

¶42

27-Aditya/-

Ibrahim v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Ibrahim v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kailash Saran Vs State of Rajasthan

Anda Ram Vs State of Rajasthan

Karamjeet Singh Vs State of Rajasthan

State of Rajasthan Vs Indu Bala Kumawat and Ors.

Surendra Kumar Poonia Vs the University Grants Commission

Vijayanand Upadhyay Vs the University Grants Commission