Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 534 (PAT)

Bhagwan Rai v. State Of Bihar

2007-03-15

NAVIN SINHA

body2007
Judgment Navin Sinha, J. 1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Counsel appearing for the Respondents. 2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 22.5.2000 at Annexure-2 passed by Respondent No. 2. The impugned order directs recovery of Rs. 20,000.00 from the petitioner in view of the order passed by this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 8973 of 1998. 3. C.W.J.C. No. 8973 of 1998 was filed by one Sheo Shankar Singh for release of his provident fund dues. A Bench of this Court disposed off the matter on 31.8.1999. The Court noticed the flurry of activities that took place in the office of the Respondents after the writ petition was taken up for release of the provident fund dues and internecine battle that then took place between the petitioner and Respondent No. 2 with regard to their stands before the court. Respondent No. 2 blamed the petitioner for the delay. The petitioner being represented by his superior (Respondent No. 2 had no occasion to file a separate counter affidavit. This Court while directing the early release of the dues imposed costs of Rs. 20,000.00 with a direction to recover the same from the Officers concerned on account of whose default the payment had not been made so far. 4. The petitioner prior to the orders for recovery from him dated 22.5.2000 moved this Court in L.P.A. No. 1479 of 1999, which came to be dismissed as withdrawn to enable him to prefer a review application. Civil Review No. 166 of 2000 preferred by the petitioner also came to be dismissed. 5. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that it was the stand of Respondent No. 2 in the earlier writ petition that the delay was attributable to the petitioner. The petitioner had no opportunity or occasion to place his case before the Court. Respondent No. 2 was himself a party-respondent in the writ petition and pursuant to the order of the writ court he has become the judge and executioner both. The order of the writ Court was to recover the costs from the Officer concerned. This necessarily required an enquiry to be held fixing the responsibility be it upon the petitioner or any other respondent or in commonality between them. Respondent No. 2 has virtually confronted the petitioner with fait accompli leaving him remedyless. The order of the writ Court was to recover the costs from the Officer concerned. This necessarily required an enquiry to be held fixing the responsibility be it upon the petitioner or any other respondent or in commonality between them. Respondent No. 2 has virtually confronted the petitioner with fait accompli leaving him remedyless. The submission on behalf of the Respondents was that the order of recovery has been passed in pursuance of the order of the writ Court. 6. The Court has considered the submissions on behalf of the parties. The dismissal of L.P.A. and the review petition undoubtedly is adverse to the interest of the petitioner. This Court, however, finds that the L.P.A. was preferred even before the order of recovery was passed on 22.5.2000 inasmuch as it was presented before this Court on 24.11.1999. The impugned order was subsequent to the same. This Court is satisfied that the petitioner cannot be prejudiced on account of the same. 7. This Court finds much substance in the submission on behalf of the petitioner that both the petitioner and Respondent No. 2 being Respondents in C.W.J.C. No. 8973 of 1998, the petitioner being subordinate of Respondent No. 2 was represented by him when the entire blame appears to have been put upon the present petitioner. In terms of the order of the Court it necessarily had to be the matter of enquiry as to who was the Officer and/or Officers concerned and on account of whose lapses the payment to the petitioner therein was delayed. 8. Since Respondent No. 2 was himself party-Respondent No. 5 in the writ petition, no fair or impartial enquiry can be said to be possible by him and the possibility of official bias cannot be ignored. 9. In the circumstances, this writ application is allowed. Annexures 2 & 3 dated 22.5.2000 and 18.8.2000 are, accordingly, quashed. 10. The matter is remanded to the Secretary, Department of Rural Development. Government of Bihar to hold enquiry after noticing all concerned and arrive at a determination of the liability in terms of the order of this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 8973 of 1998 and pass consequential order of recovery against the defaulting Officer. Let such enquiry be done within a period of five months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order.