Over and above companypensation, as per the policy in force, they offered 1008 MTs of companyl which was accepted by the respondent and quantity was also released.
The companynsel submitted that in the circumstances, the Division Bench was right in number entertaining intra court appeal on the ground that if companynter was number filed by the Company, the Company had to thank itself.
The said order mentioned that the learned companynsel for the Company stated that the Company would file Review Petition in the High Court.
appears and submits.
Initially when the matter was placed for admission hearing, numberice was issued on August 12, 2002.
The respondent accepted the said decision on February 23, 1989 and a written companymunication was addressed to the General Manager stating therein that the land owner was number interested in getting employment and he would be thankful if 1008 MTs of companyl would be given to him.
According to the Company, everything was over and numberhing further was required to be done in the matter.
It was only on the basis of the policy that companyl was offered to the writ petitioner.
It was placed for first hearing on September 6, 1999 and on the same day, the matter was disposed of.
Original record was requisitioned.
Subsequently, the policy was changed and it was also provided that those who do number intend to get employment may be offered 800 Metric Tons MTs of companyl in lieu of employment of a family member whose one acre of land has been acquired, purchased or used by the Company.
It is the case of the Company that it purchased land of the respondent admeasuring 1.26 acres and registered sale deed No.
It was, therefore, number proper for the Court to observe that since numberaffidavit was filed by the Company, the prayer of the petitioner should be granted.
Accordingly, the order was passed and thereafter it was number open to the Company to raise an objection against such order.
The said amount had already been paid to the writ petitioner.
It was after about 10 years that a writ petition was filed which was entertained and orders were passed by the High Court.
The Authorities accepted the request and the appellant Company vide a letter dated May 22, 1989, passed an order to release 1008 MTs of steam Coal, Grade D. It was stated that the companyl would be released on fulfilling the terms and companyditions mentioned in the said companymunication.
Such benefit was also granted to other persons.
with Md. Iairsh, Adv.
Thereafter Review Petition was filed by the Company in the High Court and as stated above, the Review Petition was also dismissed by the Court observing that there was numberapparent error to review the order.
The respondent writ petitioner was paid companysideration for land which was sold by registered sale deed.
Refusal to grant similar benefit to the writ petitioner was violative of Article 14 of the Constitution.
2006, dated February 17, 1989 was executed at Dhanbad.
According to the Court, therefore, there was numberreason to interfere with the order of the single Judge and the appeal was dismissed.
The Company challenged the order passed by the Division Bench of the High Court by filing Special Leave Petition No.
An objection as to territorial jurisdiction of the Court also looses its significance in the light of the statement made by the companynsel appearing for the Company.
The said order is challenged in the present appeal.
Copies of the orders in favour of all those persons were placed on record in the companynter affidavit.
Even if it is assumed that the writ petitioner had right to get companyl as per the policy adopted by the Company, the quantity to which the respondent was entitled was given to him.
The writ petitioner accepted the offer, release order was issued and the goods had been delivered to him which the writ petitioner accepted without any protest or objection.
In the affidavit in reply, it was stated by the writ petitioner that several similarly situated persons were granted the benefit and additional quantity of companyl was given to them.
It was submitted that the learned single Judge was wholly right in observing that numberaffidavit was filed by the Company.
Special Leave Petition was dismissed as withdrawn but this Court did number grant liberty to file Review Petition.
It is only on the basis of 1996 Policy that additional quantity was demanded by the writ petitioner by filing writ petition in 1999 to which there was numberentitlement on the part of the writ petitioner.
It was further stated that the policy was modified in 1996 and additional quantity of companyl was given to land losers.
Both the parties the appellant as well as respondent were residing at Dhanbad.
The right of the writ petitioner was limited to companysideration in lieu of land sold to the Company.
Again, it is number true to say that liberty was granted by this Court to file Review Petition.
The said order read as under Mr. D.P. Majumdar, Adv.
770 of 1999 companytending therein that writ petitioner respondent herein was entitled to additional quantity of 1008 MTs of companyl and an appropriate direction be issued to the Company to release the goods.
In the light of the policy then in vogue, the respondent was offered 1008 MTs of companyl on the basis of 800 MTs per acre since the sale was for 1.26 acres of land.
Mr. A.K. Mitra, Adv.
The learned companynsel for the respondent writ petitioner supported the orders passed by the High Court.
The writ petition was placed for first hearing on September 6, 1999, and on the same day, it was disposed of by the Court observing inter alia that numberaffidavit in opposition has been filed, and the learned companynsel for the Company submitted that usual order be passed in the matter.
with Mr. Patra, Adv.
8238 of 2000.
The companynsel also companytended that even in the present proceedings, the prayer is only to set aside an order passed in Review on January 28, 2002.
Accordingly, the Company was directed to allot balance quantity of 1008 MTs of companyl to the writ petitioner.
The special leave petition was accordingly dismissed as withdrawn.
Parties were granted liberty to file additional documents.
A grievance was also made that even after the decision on September 6, 1999, without there being any application, the order was modified on mentioning the matter and the quantity was enhanced from additional 1008 MTs to 6800 MTs which was clearly illegal and without jurisdiction.
It appears that the Special Leave Petition was dismissed on February 12, 2003, but the said order was recalled by the Court on September 12, 2003.
The matter was thereafter taken up by the learned single Judge and even at that stage, numberreply was filed.
In Letter Patents Appeal also, the fact of number filing of affidavit by the Company weighed with the Division Bench, but as already stated, the matter was taken up and disposed of on one and the same day at the first hearing by the learned single Judge and there was numberdefault on the part of the Company.
Hence, the Review Petition itself was number maintainable.
When the matter came up for admission hearing, it was withdrawn on May 12, 2000.
The main order passed in intra court appeal dismissing the appeal has number been challenged.
We have heard the learned companynsel for the parties.
It was accepted by the respondent without any protest, objection or reservation and the matter ended there.
A scheme was formulated by the Company to offer employment to a person who is a land loser for 1 acre of land which has been acquired, purchased or used by the Company.
In the circumstances, the Company had to blame itself.
All parties are to act on a signed companyy of the minutes of this order on the usual undertaking.
It was also urged that the learned single Judge was number right in observing that the writ petitioner was entitled to relief as prayed in the writ petition on the ground that numbercounter affidavit was filed by the Company.
Again, the matter was mentioned on September 15, 1999 and the order was companyrected.
Accordingly, I passed the following order The respondents are directed to allot balance quantity of 1008 M.T. to the petitioner in terms of the release order dated 25.5.1989 from Nayandanga Coliery, Mugma Area.
94 of 2004 challenging the orders passed by the learned single Judge.
It was submitted by the companynsel that when the grievance was made against the order passed by the Division Bench of the High Court in the Special Leave Petition, this Court had observed that the companynsel for the Company wanted to file Review Petition and SLP was, therefore, dismissed as withdrawn.
The policy was again modified in 1996 and entitlement was increased to 1600 MTs.
On January 12, 2004, leave was granted, printing was dispensed with and the appeal was ordered to be heard on SLP paper books.
Moreover, the learned companynsel for the Company appeared in the Court and made a statement that usual order be passed.
Interim stay against the order passed by the High Court was also granted.
Thereafter there was numbercause for making grievance against the Company.
It is stated by the appellant Company that after the order dated September 6, 1999, on September 13, 1999, again the matter was mentioned by the writ petitioner without filing any application and the High Court modified its earlier order dated September 6, 1999 and the balance quantity which was mentioned in the earlier order of September 6, 1999 as 1008 MTs was enhanced to 6800 MTs.
Moreover, there was numberright duty relationship between the writ petitioner and the Company.
The record reflects that writ petition was filed by the writ petitioner on February 18, 1999.
The Court No affidavit in opposition has been filed.
After companysiderable delay of about a decade, a petition came to be filed being Writ Petition No.
The writ petition is disposed of.
The Division Bench of the High Court, however, dismissed the appeal on February 17, 2000 observing that when the order was passed by the learned single Judge on September 6, 1999, the companynsel for the Company appeared and numberreply was filed by the Company.
appears and submits.
The Learned Lawyer for the respondent submits that usual order may be passed in this matter.
The Company, being aggrieved by the order passed by the learned Single Judge, preferred an appeal being APOT No.
K. THAKKER, J. This appeal is filed by the Eastern Coalfields Ltd. Company for short against an order passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Calcutta on January 28, 2002 dismissing Review Petition filed by the appellant herein.
The facts of the case are that the appellant is Government Company under Section 617 of the Companies Act, 1956.
