Back
2024 Supreme(HP) 15
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
AJAY MOHAN GOEL, J.
The Barmana ACC Land Looser and Affected Transport Co-operative Society, Barmana – Appellant
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh and others - Respondents
CWP No. 7281 of 2022
Decided on : 02-01-2024
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :Mr. Devender K. Sharma, Advocate.
For the Respondents:Mr. Rajat Chauhan, Mr. K.D. Sood, Mr. Sanjeev Sood, Mr. Dinesh Thakur, Advocate, Mr. Mukul Sood, Advocate
The Rehabilitation and Resettlement Plan, 2009, applies prospectively and does not extend to Cement Plants already in existence. The authority to distribute transportation work lies with the appropriate authority, not the Deputy Commissioner.
Headnote:
Rehabilitation and Resettlement Plan - Transportation Work - Himachal Pradesh Rehabilitation and Resettlement Plan, 2009 - [REHABILITATION AND RESETTLEMENT PLAN, 2009] - The court dismissed the writ petition seeking transportation work for the members of the petitioner society, citing that the Rehabilitation and Resettlement Plan, 2009, was prospective and not applicable to Cement Plants already in existence. The Deputy Commissioner was found not to have the authority to distribute transportation work, and the petition was dismissed.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought a writ of certiorari to quash an order rejecting their representation for transportation work and a writ of mandamus to direct the state to provide transportation work to the members of the petitioner society.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner was not entitled to the relief sought, as the Rehabilitation and Resettlement Plan, 2009, was not applicable to Cement Plants already in existence. The Deputy Commissioner was also found not to have the authority to distribute transportation work.
Issues: The issues involved the entitlement of the petitioner society to transportation work under the Rehabilitation and Resettlement Plan, 2009, and the authority of the Deputy Commissioner to distribute transportation work.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the Rehabilitation and Resettlement Plan, 2009, was prospective and not applicable to Cement Plants already in existence. It also found that the Deputy Commissioner did not have the authority to distribute transportation work.
Final Decision: The petition was dismissed, but the petitioner society was granted liberty to approach the appropriate authority for redressal of their grievance.
JUDGMENT :
Ajay Mohan Goel, J.
By way of this writ petition, the petitioner has primarily prayed for the following reliefs:-
“i) That a writ in the nature of certiorari may kindly be issued and impugned order dated 14.7.2022 may kindly be quashed and set aside.
ii) That a writ in the nature of mandamus may kindly be issued and respondent state may kindly b directed to provide the transportation work to the members of the petitioner society in respondent no. 4 (ACC cement Plant at Barmana) and allow them to ply their trucks and multi Axel Trucks in the respondent no. 4 to transport the material from the Ambuja Cement Plant Barmana as per their quota/share and provisions of Rehabilitation and Resettlement plan, 2009 implemented in its letter and spirit.
2. Having heard learned Counsel for the parties and having carefully gone through the pleadings as well as the documents appended therewith, which include the impugned order as well as the Rehabilitation and Resettlement Plan, 2009, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioner is not entitled for any relief as is being prayed for.
3. In terms of relief No. 2, the petitioner is seeking a mandamus against the respondent-State to the effect that the State be directed to provide transportation work to the members of the petitioner-Society in respondent No. 4 (ACC Cement Plant at Barmana) as per their quota and share and as per provisions of the Rehabilitation and Resettlement Plan, 2009.
4. The Rehabilitation and Resettlement Plan, 2009, is appended with the petition as Annexure P-3. Opening three lines of this particular notification read as under:-
“REVENUE DEPARTMENT (PROJECT CELL)
NOTIFICATION
Shimla-2 the 11th June, 2009
No. Rev(PC)A(9)-2/2007-The governor, Himachal Pradesh is please to notify the Rehabilitation and Resettlement Plan, 2009 as per annexure-A, for resettlement and rehabilitation of families affected by Cement Plants to be established in Himachal Pradesh and shall come into force with immediate effect.
By Order, Sd/-
Additional Chief Secretary-cum-
Financial Commissioner.”
5. Thus, the Rehabilitation and Resettlement Plan, 2009, is for resettlement and rehabilitation of families affected by Cement Plants “to be established in Himachal Pradesh”. Respondent No. 4 is in existence since 1984, as is evident from the replies filed by the respondents. This fact could not be disputed by the petitioner during the course of hearing of this petition.
6. That being the case, this Court fails to understand as to how members of the petitioner-Society are entitled for the benefits envisaged under the provisions of the Rehabilitation and Resettlement Plan, 2009, which was not only prospective in nature but was with regard to the Cement Plants which were to be established in Himachal Pradesh and not relatable to Cement Plants already in existence.
7. Coming to relief No. 1, in terms thereof, the petitioners have prayed for quashing of order dated 14.07.2022 (Annexure P-9), vide which the representation of the petitioners to provide work of Cement/ Clinker manufactured by ACC Cement Plant, Barmana, has been rejected by Deputy Commissioner, Bilaspur, Himachal Pradesh, by assigning the following reasons:-
“8) That as per the report submitted by BDTS there are total 2032 trucks registered with BDTS and out of which 478 trucks pertain to those members/persons which are either outstees of ACC Cement factory Barmana or affected persons of five Gram Panchayats, adjoining to ACC Cement factory Barmana and the same fact has not been contradicted at any time, which clearly implies that oustees/affected families/ persons of ACC Cement Factory, Barmana are associated in the transportation work of ACC Cement Factory. Since there is no enhancement in the production of cement since 2006 and therefore, it can be construed that volume of work has not increased. The Hon'ble High Court has also observed on the basis of report of Committee that additional trucks may be added by the in case volume of work i
