1992 Supreme(Cal) 103

High Court Of Calcutta
Paritosh Kumar Mukherjee, Amal Kanti Bhattacharji
DAMODAR VALLEY CORPORATION - Appellant
Versus
DAMODAR VALLEY CORPORATION DISPLACED EMPLOYEES UNION - Respondent
C. A. J.  3664  Of  1991
Decided On : 03/06/1992

The observations made in the case of State of U. P. v. Brahm Datt (supra), cannot have any application in the instant case, as in the said case, separate and subsequent causes of action had already taken place after disposal of the writ petition and, as such, it was not open to the Court to re-open the proceedings by means of miscellaneous petition.

Headnote:

DAMODAR VALLEY CORPORATION ACT, 1948 - SECTION 22(2)(V) - DISPLACED PERSONS - RE-SETTLEMENT - ABSORPTION - WRIT PETITION - CONTEMPT PETITION - JURISDICTION - ESTOPPEL - INTERPRETATION OF STATUTE - ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER - LIBERTY TO APPLY - MEDICAL FITNESS - AGE LIMIT.

Fact of the Case:

The Damodar Valley Displaced Employees' Union (Union) and others filed a writ petition, praying for a writ of mandamus upon the respondents to allow 91 persons (who affirmed supplementary affidavits and had been able to prove the authenticity of their respective titles) to be absorbed without any delay by Damodar Valley Corporation (DVC). The writ petitioners referred to the relevant provisions of section 22(2)(V) of the Damodar Valley Corporation Act, 1948, wherein, it has been provided for re-settlement of the population displaced by the dams, acquisition of land for reservoirs and protection of water sheds.

Finding of the Court:

The Court held that the learned Single Judge had not committed any mistake by entertaining the entire matter once again for disposal, in terms of the earlier liberty given by His Lordship. The Court also held that the observations, made in the case of Mayurakshi Gramin Bank, Suri v. Kanchan Kumar Sarkar and Ors. (supra), referred to by Mr. S. Pal, are not applicable in the facts and circumstances of the instant case. Further, the Court held that the teamed Single Judge has rightly directed absorption of 91 persons, subject to their medical fitness as their respective titles have been established in respect of the lands in question, as the DVC was not agreeable to have the matter decided by an independent judicial officer, as an Arbitrator. The Court also held that the office circular dated April 6, 1990, redefining "displaced persons", has been passed only to by-pass the earlier directions of Bhagabati Prosad Banerjee, J. referred to hereinabove.

Issues: Whether the learned Single Judge had committed any jurisdictional error and/or infirmity in passing direction, on a disposed of petition, which was disposed or by a judgment and order dated December 21, 1990, with liberty, however, given to the parties to mention the matter if occasion so arises and further this Court has to assess whether the observations made in the case of State of U. P. v. Brahm Datt (supra), is a bar, in entertaining the matter once again pursuant to the liberty.

Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that the observations made in the case of State of U. P. v. Brahm Datt (supra), cannot have any application in the instant case, as in the said case, separate and subsequent causes of action had already taken place after disposal of the writ petition and, as such, it was not open to the Court to re-open the proceedings by means of miscellaneous petition. The Court also held that the learned Judge had not committed any mistake by entertaining the entire matter once again for disposal, in terms of the earlier liberty given by His Lordship. The Court also held that the observations, made in the case of Mayurakshi Gramin Bank, Suri v. Kanchan Kumar Sarkar and Ors. (supra), referred to by Mr. S. Pal, are not applicable in the facts and circumstances of the instant case. Further, the Court held that the teamed Single Judge has rightly directed absorption of 91 persons, subject to their medical fitness as their respective titles have been established in respect of the lands in question, as the DVC was not agreeable to have the matter decided by an independent judicial officer, as an Arbitrator.

Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed but without any order as to costs. The Court also disposed of the application for contempt by directing the appellant DVC to absorb the 91 writ petitioners, subject to their physical fitness, who have been able to prove their title, forthwith, preferably within a period of one week from communication of the operative part of this Judgment.