LexEASTERN COALFIELDS LTD. versus DUGAL KUMAR
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2008] 11 S.C.R. 369 )r EASTERN COALFIELDS LTD. A v. DUGAL KUMAR (Civil Appeal NO. 245 of 2004) JULY 28, 2008 B ... __,, [C.K. THAKKER AND LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA, JJ.] Constitution of India, 1950 - Articles 226 and 32 - Coal company offered employment or coal to persons in lieu of c land acquired or purchased by it- Award of 1008 MTs coal to petitioner against land purchased by Company - Writ peti- tion filed after a decade seeking directions to the Company to release balance quantity of 1008 MTs coal-Allowed by High Court by order dated 06. 09. 1999 - Subsequently, on mere D mentioning of the matter by counsel, by order dated 13. 09. 1999, High Court enhanced balance quantity of coal to 6008 MTs - Appeal thereagainst dismissed - SLP dismissed as withdrawn - Review Petition also dismissed by High Court - On appeal, held: Petitioner entitled to 1008 MTs coal E awarded to him initially as a/so balance quantity of 1008 MTs coal awarded to him by order dated 06.09.1999 - Order was passed on basis of statement by counsel for Company that usual order may be passed - Thus, objection regarding de- lay in filing writ petition as also territorial jurisdiction of High Court cannot be upheld - However, High Court not justified in F .... passing order dated 13. 09. 1999 on mere mentioning of mat- I ter without any application for modification/clarification of or- der dated 06. 09. 99 - Hence, that part of the order set aside. Appellant-Company formulated a Scheme whereby G it offered employment to a person whose one acre of land was acquired, purchased or used by the Company. Sub- sequently, the policy was changed and 800 Metric Tons (MTs) of coal was offered in lieu of employment of a fam- 269 H 370 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 11 S.C.R. A ily member. In 1996, the policy was again modified and the entitlement was increased to 1600 MTs. Appellant- Company purchased the land of the respondent measur- ing 1.26 acres and executed a registered' sale deed at Dhanbad. As per the policy, the Company offered 1008 B MTs of coal to the respondent. The respondent accepted the same and the coal was released. After a period of ten years, the respondent filed a writ petition before the Calcutta High Court seeking directions to the Company to release additional quantity of 1008 MTs coal to the re- c spondent. The writ petition was placed for 'first' hearing on 6.09.1999, and in view of the statement of the counsel for the Company that 'usual order' be passed in the mat- ter, the petition was disposed of .. The Single Judge of High Court directed the Company to allot "balance quantity of 0 1008 MTs" of coal to the writ-petitioner. Thereafter, on 13.09.1999, the respondent mentioned the matter without filing any application and the High Court enhanced the balance quantity of coal to 6800.MTs. The Company filed appeal challenging the order of the Single Judge of High Court. The Division Bench of the High .Court dismissed E the appeal. Aggrieved, appellant filed SLP which was sub- sequently withdrawn as the Company wanted to file 'Re- view Petition' in the High Court. Thereafter, the appellant filed Review Petition. The Division Benc.h of the H.igh F Court dismissed the same. Hence the present appeaJ. Partly allowing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1.1 With regard to the technical objection raised by the Company as to territorial jurisdiction of the High Court of Calcutta it would not be appropriate to set G aside the order passed in favour of the writ petitioner on that ground. It is clear from the record that the writ peti- tion came up for admission hearing on September 6, 1999 and the counsel for the appellant-Company was. present. Not only that he did not raise any objection as to territo- H rial jurisdiction of the Court, he expressly made a state- EASTERN COALFIELDS LTD. v. DUGAL 371 KUMAR ., ment before the Court to pass "usual order". Accordingly, A an order was passed directing the Company to allot "bal- a nee quantity of 1008 MTs" of coal to the writ petitioner. Therefore, it cannot be said that the High Court of Calcutta had no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the writ petition. [Para 13] [380-C-F] B . ....- 1.2 The submission that the appeal is not maintain- able since the Company had challenged the orqer passed in Review Petition dated January 28, 2002 and not the main order dated February 17, 2000 dismissing intra-Court appeal. cannot be accepted. It w
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.