9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (7) TMI 948X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Act, 1956. A scheme was formulated by the Company to offer employment to a person who is a land loser for 1 acre of land which has been acquired, purchased or used by the Company. Subsequently, the policy was changed and it was also provided that those who do not intend to get employment may be offered 800 Metric Tons (MTs) of coal in lieu of employment of a family member whose one acre of land has been acquired, purchased or used by the Company. The policy was again modified in 1996 and entitlement was increased to 1600 MTs. 3. It is the case of the Company that it purchased land of the respondent admeasuring 1.26 acres and registered sale deed No. 2006, dated February 17, 1989 was executed at Dhanbad. In the light of the policy then in vogue, the respondent was offered 1008 MTs of coal on the basis of 800 MTs per acre since the sale was for 1.26 acres of land. The respondent accepted the said decision on February 23, 1989 and a written communication was addressed to the General Manager stating therein that the land owner was not interested in getting employment and he would be thankful if 1008 MTs of coal would be given to him. The Authorities accepted the request and the app ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n the earlier order of September 6, 1999 as 1008 MTs was enhanced to 6800 MTs. Again, the matter was mentioned on September 15, 1999 and the order was corrected. 7. The Company, being aggrieved by the order passed by the learned Single Judge, preferred an appeal being APOT No. 94 of 2004 challenging the orders passed by the learned single Judge. The Division Bench of the High Court, however, dismissed the appeal on February 17, 2000 observing that when the order was passed by the learned single Judge on September 6, 1999, the counsel for the Company appeared and no reply was filed by the Company. In the circumstances, the Company had to blame itself . The matter was thereafter taken up by the learned single Judge and even at that stage, no reply was filed. According to the Court, therefore, there was no reason to interfere with the order of the single Judge and the appeal was dismissed. 8. The Company challenged the order passed by the Division Bench of the High Court by filing Special Leave Petition No. 8238 of 2000. When the matter came up for admission hearing, it was withdrawn on May 12, 2000. The said order mentioned that the learned counsel for the Company stated that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... re passed by the High Court. According to the appellant, there was gross delay and laches on the part of the writ petitioner in approaching the Court and on that ground also, no order could have been passed granting relief in favour of the writ petitioner. Moreover, there was no right-duty relationship between the writ petitioner and the Company. The right of the writ petitioner was limited to consideration in lieu of land sold to the Company. The said amount had already been paid to the writ petitioner. It was only on the basis of the policy that coal was offered to the writ-petitioner. Even if it is assumed that the writ petitioner had right to get coal as per the policy adopted by the Company, the quantity to which the respondent was entitled was given to him. Thereafter there was no cause for making grievance against the Company. It is only on the basis of 1996 Policy that additional quantity was demanded by the writ-petitioner by filing writ petition in 1999 to which there was no entitlement on the part of the writ petitioner. Even on that ground, therefore, the petition was liable to be dismissed. The counsel also argued that when the writ petitioner was paid consideration fo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Judge was wholly right in observing that no affidavit was filed by the Company. Moreover, the learned counsel for the Company appeared in the Court and made a statement that usual order be passed. Accordingly, the order was passed and thereafter it was not open to the Company to raise an objection against such order. An objection as to territorial jurisdiction of the Court also looses its significance in the light of the statement made by the counsel appearing for the Company. In the affidavit-in-reply, it was stated by the writ petitioner that several similarly situated persons were granted the benefit and additional quantity of coal was given to them. Copies of the orders in favour of all those persons were placed on record in the counter-affidavit. It was further stated that the policy was modified in 1996 and additional quantity of coal was given to land losers. Such benefit was also granted to other persons. Refusal to grant similar benefit to the writ petitioner was violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. The counsel submitted that in the circumstances, the Division Bench was right in not entertaining intra-court appeal on the ground that if counter was not filed by th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ection raised by the writ petitioner. 15. As to delay and laches on the part of the writ petitioner, there is substance in the argument of learned counsel for the appellant- Company. It is well-settled that under Article 226 of the Constitution, the power of a High Court to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction is discretionary. One of the grounds to refuse relief by a writ Court is that the petitioner is guilty of delay and laches. It is imperative, where the petitioner invokes extra-ordinary remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution, that he should come to the Court at the earliest reasonably possible opportunity. Inordinate delay in making the motion for a writ is indeed an adequate ground for refusing to exercise discretion in favour of the applicant. 16. Under the English law, an application for leave for judicial review should be made promptly . If it is made tardily, it may be rejected. The fact that there is breach of public law duty does not necessarily make it irrelevant to consider delay or laches on the part of the applicant. Even if leave is granted, the question can be considered at the time of final hearing whether relief should be granted in favour ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssary for us to refer to several decisions on this point wherein a similar view has been taken by this Court. Suffice it to say that in Express Publications v. Union of India, (2004) 11 SCC 526, this Court referring to Tilokchand Motichand, Rabindranath Bose and Ramchandra Deodhar v. State of Maharashtra, (1974) 1 SCC 317, explained the principle thus; No hard and fast principle can be laid down that under no circumstances delay would be a relevant consideration in judging constitutional validity of a provision. It has to be remembered that the constitutional remedy under Article 32 is discretionary. In one case, this Court may decline discretionary relief if person aggrieved has slept over for long number of years. In another case, depending upon the nature of violation, court may ignore delay and pronounce upon the invalidity of a provision. It will depend from case to case. (emphasis supplied) 21. Prima facie, we are satisfied that the learned single Judge should not have entertained a writ petition in 1999 and in directing the Company to release balance quantity of 1008 MTs of coal to the writ petitioner. But as observed earlier, the order was passed in view of the s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . From the totality of circumstances, we are of the considered view that the respondentwrit petitioner was entitled to the price (consideration) for the land sold by him by registered sale deed to the Company which has already been paid to him. He was also entitled to 1008 MTs of coal which was given to him as per the Policy. He was further entitled to 1008 MTs which has been ordered to be given to him towards balance quantity on the basis of statement made by the Counsel for the Company and in terms of usual order dated September 6, 1999 passed by the learned single Judge. We are, however, convinced that the learned single Judge was not justified in granting prayer on mentioning the matter on September 13, 1999 without any application for modification of earlier order and direction to the Company to allot to the writ petitioner balance quantity of 6800 MTs of steak coal Grade-D quality. To that extent, therefore, the appeal filed by the Company deserves to be allowed. 26. For the foregoing reasons, the appeal is partly allowed and the writ petitioner is held entitled to 1008 MTs as initially awarded to him as also 1008 MTs of coal towards balance quantity as per the order ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
