w w w . L a w y e r S e r v i c e s . i n



Bihar State Cooperative Marketing Union Limited (BISCOMAUN), B and Another v/s Electronic System Punjab Ltd. (ESPL) and Others

    LPA Nos. 819 and 854 of 2005 (in CWJC No. 15585 of 2004)

    Decided On, 13 May 2013

    At, High Court of Judicature at Patna

    By, THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.N. HUSSAIN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH

    For the Appellant: Rajesh Prasad Chiudhary and Ajatshatru, Advocates. For the Respondent: Naresh Dikshit, Advocate.



Judgment Text

S.N. Hussain, J.–

1.Both the aforesaid Letters Patent Appeals have been taken up together and are being decided by this common order. Both of them have been filed against order dated 26.07.2005 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 15585 of 2004. Furthermore appellant in the first L.P.A. is respondent no. 2 in the second L.P.A. whereas appellant in the second L.P.A. is respondent no. 2 in the first L.P.A. and moreover respondent no. 1 (writ petitioner) is common in both the Letters Patent Appeals.

2. Learned counsel for respondent no. 2 in both the appeals have also been heard today whereas on both dates learned counsel for respondent no. 1 remained absent although their name is appearing in the daily cause list. Furthermore, no counter affidavit has been filed by respondent no. 1 in any of the aforesaid two appeals, although they have remained pending about eight long years.

3. In both the appeals the appellants have challenged order dated 26.07.2005 by which learned single Judge of this Court disposed of C.W.J.C. No. 15585 of 2004 on the assumption that the District Collector, Patna at the instance of the Bihar State Co-operative Marketing Union, both of whom were different limbs of the State, entered in the tenanted property of Electronic System of Punjab Limited (respondent no. 1), who was the tenant of BISCOMAUN and forcibly evicted, removed his goods and threatened to sell such goods and in the meantime handed over possession of the tenanted property to BISCOMAUN and let out that portion to a third party. On the said ground the following directions were given by learned Single Judge while disposing of the writ petition.

"In such view of the matter, the writ petition is allowed. BISCOMAN is directed to hand over possession of the tenanted property of the petitioner within 24 hours from now. BISCOMAN is directed to hand over the properties of the petitioner now in its custody within 24 hours from now. BISCOMAN shall pay compensation to the petitioner amounting to रTen lacs and the District Collector, Patna shall pay compensation to the petitioner amounting to रTen lacs from his personal resources. Such payment shall be made within seven days from today."

4. The claim of the appellants in both the Letters Patent Appeals are that they were respondents in the writ petition but were given no opportunity to file their reply/counter affidavit to the writ petition and the writ petition was decided on the first day on which it was taken up for hearing in the admission matter for the first time.

5. The specific claim of the appellants is that it was wrongly presumed that there was unauthorized or forceful eviction of the writ petitioner because the inventory report submitted by the Executive Magistrate which was prepared in presence of the representatives and security guard of the writ petitioner clearly showed that it was not a case of eviction rather it was a case of vacation with consent. The said inventory report was prepared after receipt of the letter of the Principal Secretary, Government of Punjab by which Home Secretary, Government of Bihar was informed that legal representative of the writ petitioner had been authorized to be present at the time of preparation of the inventory report and requested to ensure safety of goods till the goods were removed by the writ petitioner which is a Punjab Government Company which had already been given consent to vacate the rented area, hence there was no question of any illegal eviction.

6. The said facts are also apparent from the documents annexed to the writ petition and hence the order of the learned Single Judge clearly discloses that the order was passed in a hurried manner without giving any opportunity to the respondents of the writ petitioner and without perusing the materials already available on record.

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

/> 7. In the said circumstances, both the aforesaid Letters Patent Appeals are allowed. The impugned order of the learned Single Judge dated 26.07.2005 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 15585 of 2004 is hereby set aside and the matter is remanded to the learned Single Judge to consider C.W.J.C. No. 15585 of 2004 afresh after giving due opportunity to the respondents of the writ petitioner to file a reply/counter affidavit.
O R