Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Rajesh Shankar, J.
Bipin Kumar Tiwary - Petitioner
Versus
Zila Parishad, Dhanbad, represented through its Chairman, Zila Parishad, Dhanbad - Respondent
W.P.(C) No.1611 of 2020 With W.P.(C) No.1612 of 2020
Decided On : 06-10-2020
Jharkhand Panchayat Raj Act, 2001 - Section 73(C) empowers the Chairman of Zila Parishad to exercise supervision and control over the Chief Executive Officer and other officers and employees of the Zila Parishad. Section 19(3)(f) provides that the Chief Executive Officer controls the officers and employees of Zila Parishad subject to the general supervision and control of the Chairman. The court also referred to the judgments in Saroj Screens Private Limited v. Ghanshyam & Others and Bharmal Medical Store v. State of M.P. to establish the principles of public property allotment through public auction and the limitations on renewal of leases after expiry.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners participated in an open auction conducted by the respondent no.1 for leasing out a restaurant and a multipurpose building. They were declared successful and lease agreements were executed. After the expiry of the lease agreements, the petitioners sought renewal, but the respondent no.3 cancelled the allotment and directed the petitioners to handover the premises. The petitioners filed writ petitions, which were subsequently withdrawn on the assurance of renewal. However, the lease agreements were not renewed and fresh auction notices were issued. The petitioners filed the present writ petitions seeking renewal of the lease agreements.
Finding of the Court:
The court examined the lease agreements and found that the maximum period of the lease was for three years, which had already expired. The court also considered the resolution of the Board of Zila Parishad, Dhanbad for renewal of the lease agreements and held that any renewal after the expiry of the maximum period would be arbitrary and violative of constitutional schemes. The court further noted that the purpose of letting out the buildings was to raise financial resources, and the petitioners were paying rent at a rate much lower than the prevalent market rate. The court concluded that the respondent no.3 had taken the correct approach in conducting a fresh auction for the premises.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the lease agreements had already expired and the petitioners were not entitled to renewal after the expiry of the maximum period. The court also held that the respondent no.3 had the authority to conduct a fresh auction for the premises.
Result: The court dismissed the writ petitions and directed the Zila Parishad, Dhanbad to take possession of the premises and conduct a fresh public auction in a transparent and fair manner. The petitioners were allowed to participate in the auction process.
JUDGMENT :
The present writ petitions are taken up today through Video conferencing.
2. W.P.(C) No. 1611 of 2020 has been preferred for quashing the order as contained in Memo no. 220/Zi.Pa dated 5th March, 2018 issued by the Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Dhanbad-cum-Deputy Development Commissioner, Dhanbad (the respondent no.3) whereby the allotment of a restaurant situated at Bekarbandh, Trisen Bhawan, Dhanbad in favour of the petitioner has been cancelled in the light of letter no.C-13/2016-MPLADS dated 23rd February, 2018 issued under the signature of Under Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Statistics and Programme Implementation, New Delhi.
3. W.P.(C) No. 1612 of 2020 has been preferred for quashing the order as contained in memo no.231/Zi.Pa dated 6th March, 2018 issued by the respondent no.3 whereby the petitioner has been directed to handover the possession of the leased premises i.e., Multipurpose Building (Marriage Hall) near Kala Bhawan, Lubi Circular Road, Dhanbad within 24 hours by denying renewal of the lease agreement of the said building in the light of an enquiry report submitted by the Executive Magistrate, Dhanbad regarding a complaint filed by one Sri Ashok Kumar Singh, Jharudih, Nath Compound, Dhanbad (said to be a person related with the Office of Zila Parishad, Dhanbad).
4. The factual background of the case as stated in the writ petitions is that in the year 2016, the Board of Zila Parishad, Dhanbad took decision for giving the Multipurpose Building (Marriage Hall) and other halls/premises to the highest bidder by way of open auction and, as such, a public auction notice was published in the local newspaper vide memo no.306 dated 09th March, 2017 with respect to settlement of a restaurant situated at Bekarbandh and a multipurpose building situated near Kala Bhawan, Lubi Circular Road, Dhanbad for a period of three years by way of lease. The petitioners participated in the said auction held on 24th March, 2017 and being the highest bidders, were declared successful. The petitioner-Bipin Kumar Tiwary was allotted a restaurant at Bekarbandh and a lease agreement to that effect was executed between him and the Zila Parishad, Dhanbad on 29th March, 2017. He started running the said restaurant in the name of “Apple Restaurant”. The petitioner-Sanjay Kumar Singh was allotted multipurpose building (marriage hall) near Kala Bhawan, Lubi Circular Road, Dhanbad and a lease agreement was executed between him and the Zila Parishad, Dhanbad on 29th March, 2017 renewable after every eleven months. Subsequently, the petitioners submitted their applications on 18th February, 2018 along with payment of rent inclusive of 5% of the increased rent to the respondent no. 3 for renewal of their lease agreement on the terms and conditions as mentioned therein. However, the allotment made in favour of the petitioner Bipin Kumar Tiwary for running restaurant at Bekarbandh was cancelled by the respondent no.3 vide impugned memo no. 220/Zi.Pa. dated 05th March, 2018 in the light of letter no.C-13/2016-MPLADS dated 23rd February, 2018. The petitioner- Sanjay Kumar Singh was also served with letter dated 06th March, 2018 issued by the respondent no.3 informing inter alia that on the complaint of one Ashok Kumar Singh, the allegation was enquired by the Executive Magistrate, Dhanbad and in the light of the enquiry report, it was decided not to renew the lease agreement of the multipurpose building (marriage hall) and, hence, the petitioner-Sanjay Kumar Singh was directed to handover the possession of the said building to the Assistant Engineer, Zila Parishad, Dhanbad. The petitioners and others represented against the said impugned notices before the Chairman, Zila Parishad, Dhanbad respondent no.2, who thereafter set aside the notices issued by the respondent no.3 vide his letter no.226 dated 06th March, 2018 and advised the said authority that consent/ approval of the respondent no.2 must be taken in all future
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
