Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 1035 (GAU)

Sahabuddin Ahmed v. State of Assam

2015-08-14

MANOJIT BHUYAN

body2015
JUDGMENT AND ORDER : Manojit Bhuyan, J. The petitioner's son, Md. Jalaluddin was employed in a Rice Mill owned by one Md. Wazuddin Ahmed (since deceased). On account of the fact that Md. Jalaluddin suffered demise in the Rice Mill during the course of his employment, the petitioner had filed an application before the Commissioner, Workmen's Compensation, Nagaon against Md. Wazuddin Ahmed, the predecessor-in-interest of the Respondent Nos. 5 to 7 herein. The said case was registered as Case No. NWC 48/1998 and the amount of compensation claimed was Rs. 3,50,000/-. Compensation to the tune of Rs. 2,16,910/- along with interest was awarded vide judgment and order dated 18.03.2002. On account of the failure of the Certificate Debtor to deposit the compensation amount, a Certificate was issued by the Commissioner, Workmen's Compensation, pursuant whereof, the Bakijai Officer, Nagaon initiated proceedings against the Certificate Debtor. The said Bakijai case was registered as CC No. 1 of 2004-2005 and upon the demise of Md. Wazuddin Ahmed i.e. the Certificate Debtor, the Respondent Nos. 5 to 7 herein, being the legal heirs, were impleaded/substituted in the said proceeding. The delay in deciding the Bakijai case had constrained the petitioner to initiate WP(C)6603/2007 and by Order of this Court dated 04.08.2008 a direction was issued to the Bakijai Officer, Nagaon to dispose of the case within a period of 6 months. A second writ petition i.e. WP(C) 633/2010 came to be initiated on account of the fact that despite direction of this Court, the Bakijai Officer only sat over the matter. In the said second writ petition, this Court by Order dated 29.01.2010 disposed of the writ petition with direction to the Bakijai Officer, Nagaon to comply with the Order passed in the first writ petition i.e. WP(C)6603/2007. For the third time, the petitioner had to approach this Court, being WP(C) 1715/2011, challenging the Order dated 07.12.2010 whereby the Bikaji Officer, Nagaon disposed of the case holding that: "in this case there is nothing to be recovered from the legal heirs of the Late C.D. who died long before ....". It was also held that: "there is no scope for recovery of Public Demand in this proceeding". By a reasoned Order dated 24.03.2011, the said third writ petition i.e. WP(C) 1715/2011 stood disposed of holding that the Order passed by the Certificate Officer, Nagaon was erroneous and illegal. It was also held that: "there is no scope for recovery of Public Demand in this proceeding". By a reasoned Order dated 24.03.2011, the said third writ petition i.e. WP(C) 1715/2011 stood disposed of holding that the Order passed by the Certificate Officer, Nagaon was erroneous and illegal. Upon setting aside and quashing the said Order, the matter was remanded back to the Certificate Officer in order to make a fresh inquiry for realisation of the amount as indicated in the Certificate. The entire exercise was directed to be completed within a period of 6 months from the date of receipt of the copy of judgment and order. 2. The petitioner is again before this Court to assail the Order dated 08.03.2013 passed by the Additional Deputy Commissioner & Certificate Officer, Nagaon, the contents of which is reproduced herein below. "1st Party : Sahabuddin Ahmed Vs. 2nd Party : Wazzuddin Ahmed ORDER 8.03.2013 C.R. Put up today perused C.R. along with all the relevant documents placed before me. Seen the office noted on the note sheet. There is reasons to be no scope to realised certificate demand from the C.D. Hence this proceeding is dropped and inform all concerned accordingly. Hon'ble High Court may be informed that original C.D. is dead and his legal heir not inherited any property from him there is no scope to realise certificate demand. Moreover land holding to C.D. as shown by Mr. Sahabuddin is under occupation of other people. This proceeding is disposed with above observation. Sd/- Addl. Deputy Commissioner & Certificate Officer, Nagaon." 3. Ms. M. Devi, learned counsel representing the petitioner submits that the said Order dated 08.03.2013 suffers from non-application of mind. It is contended that the exercise which the Certificate Officer was required to undertake as per direction of this Court in WP(C) 1715/2011 have been totally ignored. It is further contended that no inquiry whatsoever was initiated for realisation of the certificate amount despite the fact that the Respondent Nos. 5 to 7 had inherited the property from the original Certificate Debtor and are also well placed in the Society. The observation made in the Order dated 08.03.2013 to the effect that there was no scope to realise the Certificate Demand from the Respondent Nos. 5 to 7 has been made as a matter of course and without any basis or substance. 4. The observation made in the Order dated 08.03.2013 to the effect that there was no scope to realise the Certificate Demand from the Respondent Nos. 5 to 7 has been made as a matter of course and without any basis or substance. 4. At paragraph 16 of the writ petition, reference has been made to the movable and immovable properties which had devolved upon Respondent Nos. 5, 6 and 7. Reference is also made to the effect that Respondent Nos. 5 and 6 are gainfully employed whereas the Respondent No. 7 is operating the Rice Mill in question, besides being the owner of a bus. The petitioner contends that all these relevant factors were not taken into account by the Certificate Officer. Rather, it was entirely ignored from any consideration. 5. In the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the Respondent No. 4 i.e. the Additional Deputy Commissioner-cum-Bakijai Officer, Nagaon, no rebuttal is made to the statements and averments made at paragraph 16 of the writ petition. The only statement that has been made is that investigation at spot was made with the Advocate but no land could be shown under the referred Dag and Patta. 6. From the aforesaid facts and having regard to the contents of the Order dated 08.03.2013 it is clear that there is no indication of any fresh enquiry being undertaken prior to rendering the said Order dated 08.03.2013. In fact, the exercise for conducting the enquiry was obligatory on the part of the Certificate Officer in terms of the direction of this Court in WP(C)1715/2011. The said Order dated 08.03.2013 do not at all inspire the confidence of this Court to hold that there was application of mind in rendering the said Order dated 08.03.2013. It is not a speaking order nor any reasons have been shown to justify or substantiate the final decision of the Certificate Officer. 7. For the reasons indicated above, the Order dated 08.03.2013 passed by the Additional Deputy Commissioner-cum-Certificate Officer, Nagaon in Bakijai Case No. CC01/2004-05 cannot stand the scrutiny of law and is liable to be interfered with, which is accordingly done. 8. 7. For the reasons indicated above, the Order dated 08.03.2013 passed by the Additional Deputy Commissioner-cum-Certificate Officer, Nagaon in Bakijai Case No. CC01/2004-05 cannot stand the scrutiny of law and is liable to be interfered with, which is accordingly done. 8. This writ petition stands allowed with direction to the Certificate Officer to put in motion a de novo exercise in respect of the Bakijai Case No. CC-01/2004-05 having regard to the statements and averments made at paragraph 16 of the writ petition, together with the land particulars as disclosed in the Jamabandi (Annexure-VI of the writ petition). 9. The de novo exercise, as indicated above, shall be completed by the Additional Deputy Commissioner & Certificate Officer, Nagaon within a period of 2 (two) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this Order. Petitioner is permitted to produce a copy of this Order along with a copy of this writ petition to the Additional Deputy Commissioner & Certificate Officer, Nagaon for his doing the needful in terms of the direction above. 10. Resultantly, this writ petition stands allowed. No costs.