Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2000 DIGILAW 341 (PAT)

Brij Mohan Prasad Yadav v. Parmeshwar Dutta Pandey @ Parmeshwar Dutta Sharma

2000-03-01

AFTAB ALAM, RAVI S.DHAVAN

body2000
Judgment 1. A public debt was being recovered. It was estate duty dues under the Recovery of Debts due to Bank and Financial Institutions Act, 1959 (now repealed). The petitioners respondents M/s. Parmeshwar Dutta Pandey alias Parmeshwar Dutta Sharma, Rameshwar Dutta Pandey, Maheshwar Dutta Pandey, Rajeshwar Dutta Pandey, Awadhesh Dutta Pandey and Mithleshwar Dutta Pandey all sons of Kapildeo Dutta Pandey residents of Dujra, Police Station Buddha Colony in the town and district of Patna, filed a writ petition and contend that their property was being put under distress and attachment for the realisation of the dues and their property could not be the subject matter of a public auction to satisfy the debts. On the writ petition, the learned Judge was satisfied that their property was being proceeded against irregularly and illegally and, thus, entered judgment on the writ petition. The judgment was dated 31.8.1999. 2. There were other reasons which were noticed by the learned Judge on the allegations which had been made by the petitioners and referred to in paragraph 4 of the judgment on the writ petition. This paragraph is* reproduced below : "The aforesaid order has not been challenged by any one and the said order has not been set aside by court. But the petitioners grievances are that despite the said order, the certificate officer has obliged respondent nos. 5 and 6 who are sons of the then Revenue Minister Mr. Brij Mohan Prasad, and allegedly included the petitioners land in the certificate proceeding, and the petitioners were sought to be dispossessed as a result ot sale of the petitioners land in the auction." 3. The parties, that is to say the array of parties in the writ petition stands thus "1. Parmeshwar Dutta Pandey alias Parmeshwar Dutta Sharma. 2. Rameshwar Dutta Pandey both sons of late Shri Dineshwar Dutta Pandey. 3. Maheshwar Dutta Pandey 4. Rajeshwar Dutta Pandey 5. Awadhesh Dutta Pandey 6. Mithleshwar Dutta Pandey All sons of late Shri Kapildeo Dutta Pandey, residents of Dujra P.S. Buddha Colony in the town and district ot Patna ... Petitioners vs. 1. The State of Bihar through the Collector, Patna. 2. Subdivisional Officer-cum-Certificate Officer, Sadar, Patna. 3. Circle Officer, Sadar, Patna. 4. Land Reforms Deputy Collector, Sadar, Patna. 5. Awadhesh Dutta Pandey 6. Mithleshwar Dutta Pandey All sons of late Shri Kapildeo Dutta Pandey, residents of Dujra P.S. Buddha Colony in the town and district ot Patna ... Petitioners vs. 1. The State of Bihar through the Collector, Patna. 2. Subdivisional Officer-cum-Certificate Officer, Sadar, Patna. 3. Circle Officer, Sadar, Patna. 4. Land Reforms Deputy Collector, Sadar, Patna. 5. Brij Mohan Prasad son of Shri Ram Jaipal Singh Yadav, Minister Revenue, Resident of Bailey Road, Patna, P.O. G.P.O., P.S. Raj Banshi Nagar in the town and district of Patna. 6. Rajiv Ranjan (minor) son of Brij Mohan Prasad Yadav, resident of Mohalla East Boring Road, Gango Budha Bhawan, Near Rajapur, Patna. ... Respondents." 4. Notice was issued to all the party respondents. All those, who faced allegations of mala fides, the respondents had been named. These were respondents 5 and 6. These respondents did not reply to the petition. It is relevant to notice what was the allegation against them. The main allegations are contained in para-graphs 16, 17, 18 and 20. These paragraphs are reproduced below : "16. That now the petitiones have learnt that the auction of plot no. 111 was held on 14.11.86 without any proper notice behind the back of the petitioners and have been purchased by Shri Rajib Ranjan, a minor son of Brij Mohan Prasad Yadav, the Revenue Minister of the State of Bihar. 17. That the petitioners have learnt that respondent no.2 has issued parwana to the respondent nos. 5 and 6 for the entire plot no. 111 including the portion of 9 decimals belonging to this petitioners in his order dated 2.12.86 and the respondent nos.5 and 6 in collusion with other respondents making preparation for evicting and dispossessing the petitioners and their family members from the said house. 18. That the petitioners again heard a rumour that the respondent no. 2 has passed some order against the petitioners in regard to their plot no. 111 Holding no. 417/408. It will not be out of place to mention here that the respondent no.5 is the son of one Ram Jaipal Singh Yadav who happens to be the Cabinet Minister holding the Revenue charge. It will not be out of place to mention here that the ill eyes of the father of respondent no. 111 Holding no. 417/408. It will not be out of place to mention here that the respondent no.5 is the son of one Ram Jaipal Singh Yadav who happens to be the Cabinet Minister holding the Revenue charge. It will not be out of place to mention here that the ill eyes of the father of respondent no. 5 fallen on the property of this poor petitioners and he became instrumental in grabing the house of the petitioners through illegal means. 19. That the father of respondent no. 5 is the immediate Minister of respondent no. 2 and therefore the respondent no. 2 for pleasing the father of the respondent no. 5 passed arbitrary, illegal orders in favour of the respondent no. 5 for issuance of parwana. " 5. A public auction was taking place. A Subdivisional Magistrate was incharge. The wards and progenies of a Minister in Government were not exactly from the best of persons upon whom the properties in this public auction ought to have been settled. A Revenue Minister has responsibility in raising taxes in accordance with law and realisation of debts, also in accordance with law. All these go in the public coffers. Plainly, a Revenue Minister is in a fiduciary capacity to the State. He should not be involved in public auctions in any case and the ethics of politics does not permit a ward and progeny of a Minister taking an interest in a public auction in which their father holds a portfolio in the cabinet. Otherwise, all such activities would tantamount to giving out favours to sons and daughters of the Ministers and those closely connected with the running of the business of the Government. This is breach of faith of a public office and in financial matters, which the present case is, sharing the loot out of the State treasury. A concessional price, is a favour and loss to the State. The respondents against whom mala fide has been alleged in the petition, perhaps, for good reasons may not have replied to the allegations. The fact of the matter is that at that very time when the writ petition had been filed in 1987 the son and the grand son had their father and grand father, respectively, as the Revenue Minister in the State Cabinet. 6. Nothing more need be said in this case. The fact of the matter is that at that very time when the writ petition had been filed in 1987 the son and the grand son had their father and grand father, respectively, as the Revenue Minister in the State Cabinet. 6. Nothing more need be said in this case. Looked at from any angle, the canons of ethics and the law of politics were violated when a son and a grand son of a Cabinet Minister of the State of Bihar were making a bid at a public auction. The Court cannot certify that the learned Judge was in error when he allowed the writ petition. The public auction already stands debased and vitiated. 7. The appeal is dismissed.