Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 545 (JHR)

Sarju Prasad v. Hec Ltd.

2002-05-02

SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA

body2002
ORDER S.J. Mukhopadhaya, J. 1. The writ petition was preferred by the petitioner against the order dated 5th/6th October, 2001 whereby the 3rd respondent Deputy Manager (Estate), Town Administration Division, HEC, Ranchi cancelled the offer letter as was issued in favour of petitioner on 7th July. 2001. 2. The case of the petitioner is that the respondents allotted quarter No. (T) 8 for long term lease with the petitioner in pursuance of applications invited in the year 1998. The petitioner had deposited the earnest money of Rs. 6000/- on 13th October, 1998 and one time premium of Rs. 1,18,252/- vide challan dated 18th July, 2001 and receipt thereof granted in favour of petitioner on 19th July. 2001, but it was not handed over, there being unauthorised occupants of the quarters. It is alleged that subsequently by impugned order dated 5th/6th October, 2001, the 3rd respondent cancelled the offer dated 7th July, 2001 in pursuance of which they accepted one time premium of Rs. 1,18,252/- without any basis and without notice to the petitioner and allotted the said quarters in favour of the 4th Respondent, Kuldeep Singh, though he was not the applicant. 3. On appearance, the respondents took plea that the petitioner could not get the Quarters vacated from the unauthorised occupants so it was allotted in favour of the 4th respondent Kuldeep Singh. When it was brought to the notice of Mr. M. Upadhaya, Chief of Township of M/s. HEC. Ranchi on 10th April. 2002. he orally accepted that it was not the duty of the petitioner to get the quarters vacated and accepted the mistake. In this background, the Respondents were directed to file affidavit as to whether they intend to give some suggestion to accommodate the petitioner in some similar quarters or not. 4. A supplementary affidavit has been field on behalf of the 2nd respondent, sworn by Mr. M. Upadhyay. Chief of Township, in which it is accepted that the 4th respondent was subsequently allotted the quarters. namely. B(T) 8. vide order dated 8th October. 2000. wherein the 4th respondent is residing. Proposal has been given by the Respondents to provide a suitable/equivalent accommodation to the petitioner in a similar type of Quarters bearing Quarters No. B-60(T) earmarked for long term lease and stated that the petitioner will be provided with vacant possession of the said Quarters within a period of 45 days. 2000. wherein the 4th respondent is residing. Proposal has been given by the Respondents to provide a suitable/equivalent accommodation to the petitioner in a similar type of Quarters bearing Quarters No. B-60(T) earmarked for long term lease and stated that the petitioner will be provided with vacant possession of the said Quarters within a period of 45 days. The petitioner who was present in Court on 25th April, 2002, orally accepted the offer. 5. Mr. Rajeeva Sharma, the counsel for the petitioner today stated that the petitioner is agreeable to the offer given by respondents in their supplementary affidavit, if the Quarters No. B-60(T) is provided to the petitioner with vacant possession within the stipulated period of 45 days. The counsel for the petitioner prayed for adequate compensation as the petitioner had to deposit the amount with the respondents after taking loan from C.P.F. and the petitioner was dragged to the Court unnecessarily. 6. Having regard to the facts and circumstances, the petitioner is directed to contact the Chief of Township H.E.C. Ranchi (2nd respondents) within a fortnight who in his turn will come out with the appropriate order/execute agreement for long term settlement of Quarters No. B-60(T) with similar terms with the order/settlement as was proposed for Quarters No. B-(T) 8 within a fortnight from the date of appearance of the petitioner. 7. The respondents are also directed to provide the petitioner with the vacant possession of Quarters No. B-60(T) of H.E.C., Colony. Dhurwa, Ranchi within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. 8. In case the respondents fail to make appropriate order/agreement and fail to provide vacant possession of Quarters No. B-60(T) aforesaid in favour of petitioner within the stipulated period, they will pay a cost of Rs. 10,000/- in favour of petitioner, and will give notice to the 4th respondent. Kuldeep Singh and after hearing him and the petitioner will pass appropriate order relating to allotment and lease of Quarters No. B (T) 8 within six months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. 9. It may be mentioned that the Court having not passed any specific order against 4th respondent. Kuldeep Singh for the present, he has not been noticed nor heard at this stage. 10. The writ petition stands disposed of with the aforesaid observations and directions.