Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 1227 (JHR)

Bhishma Singh v. State of Jharkhand

2013-11-13

AMITAV K.GUPTA, D.N.PATEL

body2013
ORDER Per D.N. Patel, A.C.J.: 1. This petition has been preferred for the following prayers:- “That in the instant Writ application the petitioner prays for issuance of an appropriate writ/writs, Order/Orders, Direction/Directions for commanding upon the respondents to act upon the agreement dated 20/08/2005 in between the State of Jharkhand and the Tata Steel Limited an existing Company under company Act 1956 regarding the special Health Insurance Scheme for the purpose of providing the medical Facilities to the family of the people below poverty line whereby and where under there is agreement dated 20/08/2005 in between State of Jharkhand and Tata Steel Limited for the purpose of providing the medical facilities regarding the special Health Insurance Scheme to the family of the people below poverty line for the period of thirty years for which the Company shall contribute a sum of Rs. 25 Crores Annually towards the premium of said scheme and in acknowledgement of participation of the company to the said scheme the State extends full cooperation to the company in settling its long pending issues related to the growth of the industries, housing and public utility purposes as recommended by the appropriate machinery committee but the respondents are not caring upon the said scheme which is highly in the interest of people of the State who is below poverty Line AND for issuance of a further writ/writs, order/orders, Direction/directions for commanding upon the concerned respondents authorities to for bear giving effects to or acting pursuant to or in furtherance the said matter.” 2. Counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that petitioner is the National General Secretary (India) of an organisation named as “International Human Rights Association” and the residential address given in the cause title is of a village Tamolia, DistrictSeraikela Kharsawan, Jharkhand. Nothing is mentioned about the activities of the petitioner nor about the fact that how they are getting financial support nor it is mentioned in the whole writ petition that how this petitioner has obtained Annexure1 which is a private agreement between respondent No.2, Chief Secretary of the State of Jharkhand and respondent No. 5 to 7. This is an agreement between the two parties and the major contention raised by the counsel for the petitioner is about the breach of an agreement and action to be taken against the respondent No. 5 to 7 for the alleged breach of the agreement. This is an agreement between the two parties and the major contention raised by the counsel for the petitioner is about the breach of an agreement and action to be taken against the respondent No. 5 to 7 for the alleged breach of the agreement. Counsel for the petitioner has also relied upon clause 6 of the Annexure1 (internal page 6 of the agreement). 3. The said clause 6 upon which the petitioner is harping reads as under:- “6. The State shall extend full cooperation for extending facilities including housing over land of AppendixE of indenture of lease dated 20.08.2005.” 4. Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that State has extended several facilities to the respondent No. 5 to 7 and therefore, this facilities should be withdrawn or respondent No. 5 to 7 should pay the money which is agreed in this agreement to the Government. 5. Affidavits-in-Reply have been filed by the State and it has been stated that they have not extended any facilities to the respondent-Company. It has also been stated that there is some new scheme floated by the Central Government known as “Rashtriya Swasthya Bima Yojna”. Beacuse of this new scheme brought into force money which is to be given by the respondent No. 5 to 7 has to be properly utilised for the welfare of the public of State of Jharkhand for which the meetings are going on between the Chief Secretary of the State of Jharkhand and the other responsible officers of the State and respondent No. 5 to 7. Thus, parties to the agreement are concious about this aspect of the matter. 6. Counsel appearing for the State has submitted that this is not a public interest litigation at all. This is absolutely a private interest litigation. No detail of the activities of the petitioner has been mentioned. How Annexure1 which is a private document has been obtained by the petitioner that is also not reflected in the memo of the writ petition and such type of the document which is absolutely private in nature cannot be obtained by any other mode than official methods. Moreover, it is submitted by the Counsel for the State that it is absolutely a dispute, if any, between the two parties. Moreover, it is submitted by the Counsel for the State that it is absolutely a dispute, if any, between the two parties. Even if the argument of the petitioner is accepted it is a breach of the contract between the parties and therefore, public interest litigation is not tenable at law. 7. We have also heard counsel appearing for respondent No.5 to 7, who has accepted the arguments canvassed by the State and he has also pointed out that they are ready and willing to make payment of money as mentioned in the agreement. Nonetheless, meetings are going on with the Chief Secretary of the State of Jharkhand and there is no breach of contract or agreement at all. Only methodology is to be suggested by the Government how to utilise the money given by the respondent No. 5 to 7. It is repeatedly pointed out by the counsel for the respondent No. 5 to 7 that they are absolutely ready and willing to make payment of the amount as per the agreement and there is no question of backing out from this Clause. Even otherwise they are also rendering their social obligation without any agreement with the Government in several fields like schools, hospitals etc. which they are running. It is also submitted by the counsel for the respondent No.5 to 7 that they have also spent few hundred lakhs towards social obligations without any agreement with anybody and therefore, the contention of petitioner that there is breach of an agreement is devoid of any merit. This is absolutely a private interest litigation and hence this petition may not be entertained by this Court. 8. Having considered the arguments of both the sides and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, we see no reason to entertain this writ petition mainly for the fooling reasons: (i) The present petition has been preferred by the petitioner who is alleging himself to be a National General Secretary (India) of some organisation named as “International Human Rights Association” and in the cause title the address is given of a village Tamolia, District Seraikela Kharsawan, Jharkhand. No detail about the activities under taken by this petitioner has been mentioned. No detail of the so called “International Human Rights Association” has also been mentioned. What is the area of the work of the petitioner is also not mentioned in the petition. No detail about the activities under taken by this petitioner has been mentioned. No detail of the so called “International Human Rights Association” has also been mentioned. What is the area of the work of the petitioner is also not mentioned in the petition. How the petitioner is getting financial support is also not reflected in the writ petition. (ii) Moreover, it appears that the whole petition is based upon breach of an agreement dated 20.08.2005 which is Annexure1 entered into between respondentState and respondent No. 5 to 7. How this private document has been obtained by the petitioner is also not pointed out in this writ petition. When this Court raised a question that how this document has been obtained they were unable to point out any application under the Right to Information Act. When we asked the lawyer who is appearing for the petitioner that whether he has seen any such application under the Right to Information Act, preferred by petitioner or by its N.G.O., the answer is in negative. Thus, the document which is absolutely a private in nature is annexed in this writ petition as Annexure1. The source of getting this document is not reflected. (iii) The petitioner has heavily relied upon breach of an agreement especially of Clauses 2 & 6 which are reflected in internal pages 5 & 6 of the agreement. The counter affidavits have already been filed by the State and it is stated that they have not extended any facility to the respondent No. 5 to 7. So far as the question of payment of the money is concerned, the counsel for the respondent No. 5 to 7 submitted that they are ready and willing to make the payment. This money is to be utilised under a particular scheme which is now to be finalised by the State. Now new scheme has been floated by the Central Government known as “Rashtriya Swasthya Bima Yojna” and therefore, meeting are going on between the Chief Secretary of the State of Jharkhand and other high ranking officials of the State with the respondent No. 5 to 7. Now new scheme has been floated by the Central Government known as “Rashtriya Swasthya Bima Yojna” and therefore, meeting are going on between the Chief Secretary of the State of Jharkhand and other high ranking officials of the State with the respondent No. 5 to 7. (iv) Thus, it appears that the petitioner has not pointed out any of his activities nor he has pointed out how they are getting financial support nor they have pointed out from where they have obtained a private document which is an agreement between the respondent No. 5 to 7 and the State and as stated hereinabove, respondent No. 5 to 7 are ready and willing to make payment to the State and the State is finalising their policy decision about some new scheme where this money can be utilised. Thus, it cannot be said that there is breach of an agreement. Even otherwise also for this type of cause public interest litigation is not tenable at law. 9. In view of the above facts and circumstance, we find no substance in this writ petition. Hence this petition is dismissed with a cost of Rs. 2,500/ which will be deposited by this petitioner within a period of six weeks, from today, before Jharkhand Legal Services Authority, Nyaya Sadan, Doranda, Ranchi. 10. Copy of the order will be sent by the Registrar of this Court to the Member Secretary, Jharkhand State Legal Services Authority, Nyaya Sadan, Doranda, Ranchi.