Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2001 DIGILAW 66 (JHR)

R. K. P. Steel Ltd. v. B. S. E. Board

2001-01-31

M.Y.EQBAL

body2001
ORDER M.Y. Eqbal, J. 1. Heard Mr. L.K. Bajla. learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. V.P. Singh, leetrned counsel for the respondents-Board. 2. This writ application has been filed challenging the order dated 12.11.1999 passed by the General Manager-cum-Chief Engineer whereby he has rejected the claim of the petitioner under Clause 13 of the H.T. Agreement for the financial years. 1982-83 and 1983-84. 3. It appears that in 1983 itself the petitioner had filed its claim under Clause 13 of the H.T. Agreement for the year, 1982-83 and again in the year, 1984 the petitioner had filed Its claim for the year, 1983-84. The General Manager disposed of the claim by order dated 4.12.1984. The petitioner challenged the said order before this Court in CWJC Nox. 1019/86 (R). The writ application was disposed of on 28.5,1989 whereby the, General Manager was directed to reconsider the claim of the petitioner by passing a fresh order. In the meantime, the petitioner was directed to deposit a sum of Rs. 26.68 lakhs approximately. The said order was, however, modified in LPA No. 292/98 (R) at the instance of the petitioner in terms of the order dated 10.11.1998 and the petitioner was directed to furnish bank guarantee instead of depositing the cash amount. Pursuant to the aforesaid direction the General Manager-cum-Chief Engineer reconsidered the matter and after giving opportunity of hearing, passed the impugned order rejecting the claim of the petitioner. 4. Mr. Bajla, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner assailed the impugned order as being illegal, arbitrary and without any application of mind. Learned counsel submitted (hat no reason has been assigned in the impugned order while rejecting the claim of the petitioner. According to the learned counsel, the General Manager has not considered the claim of the petitioner in the light of the direction of this Court in the order passed In the writ application and the letters patent appeal. 5. For better appreciation of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner it would be useful to quote the relevant portion of the order passed by the General Manager- cunvChief Engineer ;-- The consumers side was represented by Sri Rajesh Poddar, Director of the firm, Sri S.K. Dutta and Sri Lalit Bajla, Sr. Advocate. Full opportunity was given to both the sides to plead their cases through arguments, counter agreements and written statements (submissions). Advocate. Full opportunity was given to both the sides to plead their cases through arguments, counter agreements and written statements (submissions). On careful observation of available record it is apparent that the consumer did not submit any new thing during the hearing. The Elecl. Suptdg. Engineer, Elecl. Circle. Jamshedpur asserted in his written statement communicated vide his letter No. 1929 date 12.7.1999 that he relies in word and spirit on the decisions com-( municated to the consumer vide TO Letter No. 483 date 4.12.1984 and 89 dated 1.4,1994, Also Sri L.K. Bajla submitted on behalf of the consumer on 4.9.1999 that he will submit written arguments with photocopies of Judgments relied upon within a fortnight. Nothing has yet been received from consumers side. Therefore, the representation of the consumer pertaining to claim for relief under Clause 13 of the H.T. Agreement for 1982-83 and 1983-84 is rejected. ; 6. From perusal of the aforesaid order it is clear that the order is a non- speaking order inasmuch as the authority has neither considered the case of the petitioner nor has applied his mind. In CWJC No. 1019/86 (R) there was a specific direction by this Court to consider the claim preferred by the petitioner and take a decision. In the appeal also being LPA No. 292/98 (R), this Court directed the General Manager-cum-Chief Engineer to decide the petitioners claim regarding AMG for two years i.e. 1982-83 and 1983-84 In accordance with law. To take a decision in accordance with law" does not mean to dispose of the claim by non-speaking order. The expression in accordance with law" used in the order means in accordance with the procedures provided us the rules, tariff and other notifications. Even assuming that the petitioner did not submit written arguments or any other material, the General Manager ought to have decided the claim on the basis of the materials already on record particularly the grounds taken In the claim application filled by the petitioner under Clause 13 of the agreement. Since the order is a non-speaking order, I have no option out to remit the matter to the General Manager-cum-Chief Engineer to pass a reasoned order after giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. 7. For the reasons aforesaid this writ applications allowed and the impugned order to quashed with the aforesaid directions. Since the order is a non-speaking order, I have no option out to remit the matter to the General Manager-cum-Chief Engineer to pass a reasoned order after giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. 7. For the reasons aforesaid this writ applications allowed and the impugned order to quashed with the aforesaid directions. The General Manager-cum-Chief Engineer shall pass reasoned order within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 8. Application allowed.