Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 311 (JHR)

Murlidhar Dasandhi v. Bharat Coking Coal

2011-04-04

J.C.S.RAWAT

body2011
JUDGMENT J.C.S. Rawat, J. 1. This writ petition has been filed by the Petitioner seeking a direction upon the Respondents to consider his case for employment and pass necessary order for giving employment to the Petitioner in the post of Miner/Loader as his land has been acquired by the Respondents. 2. In brief, the Petitioner has stated that an advertisement was published for the post of Miner/Loader in the newspaper 'Awaz'. Pursuant to the said advertisement, the Petitioner applied for the same. Thereafter he appeared in the interview and thereafter he made representation that his selection has not taken place and he also relied in the said representation that his land has been acquired for excavation of coal by the BCCL. The said representation was kept in abeyance, so he preferred this writ petition in the year 2007. 3. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner contended that the land of the Petitioner was acquired under the Land Acquisition Act for the BCCL and under the scheme, it was obligatory for the Respondents to give employment to one of the family members of the person whose land has been acquired. He further contended that he appeared before the competent authority for the interview pursuant to the advertisement dated 11th June, 1990 with the details of his land acquired by the State for BCCL, but no employment was given to him. He also pointed out that he made several representations to the Respondents which has been annexed as annexure-1 dated 22.6.1990, annexure-2 dated 19.11.1990 and annexure-3 dated 22.2.1999 through the Rashtriya Colliery Mazdoor Sangh. He again made representation on 08.2.2005 (Annexure-6), but all those representations have not been considered by the authorities, hence this writ petition has been filed at a belated stage. 4. Learned Counsel appearing for the Respondents refuted the contention and contended that as per the scheme applicable at the relevant time, it was necessary for the evacuatee to possess at lest 2 acres of land for getting employment and the said scheme had been modified in the year 2002 by which the rider providing employment in lieu of acquisition of land had been given good-bye and only compensation had to be given to the persons concerned. It was further contended that the writ petition has been filed after a lapse of about 18 years and as such, it is a belated one. 5. It was further contended that the writ petition has been filed after a lapse of about 18 years and as such, it is a belated one. 5. I have heard the learned Counsel for the Petitioner as well as the learned Counsel for the Respondents and perused the record. It is not rebutted by the Petitioner that as per the scheme which was prevalent at the time of acquisition of his land, the person who applies for the employment against the acquisition of his land, must possess two acres of land. If it is an uncontroverted fact. It has to be seen whether the Petitioner had been possessing the land of two acres at the relevant time or not. It is evident from annexure-5 and annexure-6 to the writ petition itself, which are representations made by the Petitioner, in which the Petitioner has given details of his land as Mauza Tiwaridih, Plot No. 116 Khata No. 16 area 12 decimals only which is less than two acres. Thus, it is clear that the Petitioner's case is not covered under the scheme at the relevant time, so he is not entitled for any such employment under the said scheme. 6. The second contention made by the learned Counsel for the Respondents is that there is delay in filing the writ petition seeking redressal of his cause. It was contended on behalf of the Petitioner that several representations were made, so his petition is well within time. He has further stated explaining the delay that the representations have been made upto 2005 which have been filed along with the writ petition. 7. It is a settled principle of law that if the aggrieved person sat over his rights for a long time, the silence is fatal to the person who comes late before the Court. The delay and laches is one of the factors which has to be borne in mind by the Courts that when they exercise their discretionary power under Article 226 of the Constitution. In appropriate cases, the Court may refuse to invoke extraordinary power if such negligence on the part of the applicant to assert his right as taken in conjunction with the lapse of time and other circumstances, causes prejudice to the opposite party. It is also settled that mere making representation cannot justify a belated approach to the Court. In the case of Karnataka Power Corpn. It is also settled that mere making representation cannot justify a belated approach to the Court. In the case of Karnataka Power Corpn. Ltd. v. K. Thangappan (2006) 4 S.C.C. 322, the Supreme Court held as under: 5. The factual position as noted above clearly shows that for nearly two decades Respondent 1 workman had remained silent. As rightly pointed out by learned Counsel for the Appellants even in the representations made in 1997 and 1998 there was no reference to the representations claimed not have been made in 1982 and/or 1989. Even if that would have been made, there was considerable delay even in making the representations. There is no dispute that mere making of representations cannot justify a belated approach. 8. In view of the above, the Petitioner has made the representation in the year 1990. Thereafter, he made representations in the year 1998, 1999 and 2005 and in the intervening period from 1990 to 1997, no representation was filed. Thus, the delay has not been properly explained and there is grave laches on the part of the Petitioner in approaching the Court and as such, the petition is liable to dismissed on that score also. 9. In view of the facts stated above, I do not find any ground to interfere with. The petition fails and it is, accordingly, dismissed. No order as to costs. Petition dismissed.