Gujarat High Court
O.N.G.C. Employees ... vs State Of Gujarat & 2 on 31 July, 2017
Author: N.V.Anjaria
Bench: N.V.Anjaria
C/SCA/16810/2003 CAV JUDGMENT
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 16810 of 2003
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.V.ANJARIA
==========================================================
1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed
to see the judgment ? No
2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ? No
3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of
the judgment ? No
4 Whether this case involves a substantial question of
law as to the interpretation of the Constitution of No
India or any order made thereunder ?
==========================================================
O.N.G.C. EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION(INTUC)....Petitioner(s)
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & 2....Respondent(s)
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR BS PATEL, ADVOCATE for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MRS RANJAN B PATEL, ADVOCATE for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MR MANAN MEHTA, AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 1 - 2
MR PUSHPADATTA VYAS, ADVOCATE for the Respondent(s) No. 3
==========================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.V.ANJARIA
Date : 31/07/2017
CAV JUDGMENT
Heard learned advocate Mr.B.S. Patel for the petitioner, learned Assistant Government Pleader Page 1 of 9 HC-NIC Page 1 of 9 Created On Tue Aug 01 01:55:39 IST 2017 C/SCA/16810/2003 CAV JUDGMENT Mr.Manan Mehta for respondent Nos.1 and 2 and learned advocate Mr.Pushpadatta Vyas for respondent No.3.
2. The petitioner-association was granted 3155 sq. mtrs. of land out of Final Plot No.78 in Town Planning Scheme No.1 at Ankleshwar. The grant of the land was for the purpose of office use and for a period of 30 years' lease basis. On the ground that the petitioner had committed breach of conditions of order of grant dated 21st June, 1997 and that instead of using the land for office, premises was used for other purposes like marriage, commercial sale, etc, respondent No.1 passed order dated 21st November, 2003 cancelling allotment of land and further ordering resumption of the land by the government.
2.1 It is this order dated 21st November, 2003 which is challenged by filing the present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution.
3. From the pleadings of the parties and from record of the petition, following relevant facts could be noticed which are stated in brief as hereunder.
(i) The land in question situated within the limits of respondent No.3-Municipality, was permitted to be used by the petitioner for its office purpose.
Initially lease deed was executed on 05th January, 1993 for a period from 01st January, 1993 to 30th December, 1993 and rent was fixed thereunder, which lease deed was renewed for further period from 01st February, 1993 to 30th January, 2003;
Page 2 of 9HC-NIC Page 2 of 9 Created On Tue Aug 01 01:55:39 IST 2017 C/SCA/16810/2003 CAV JUDGMENT
(ii) In the said lease deed, condition No.9 provided that petitioner was required to obtain permission of the Municipality for the purpose of construction;
(iii) Raja Chitthi appears to have been granted at relevant time on 28th January, 1993 which was only for the purpose of putting up a kaccha structure. It is the case against the petitioner that without obtaining requisite permission from the Municipality and in violation of conditions of Raja Chitthi, petitioner put up permanent construction and erected building;
(iv) A proposal was mooted by respondent No.3 Municipality through the Collector to the State Government under Section 65(2) of the Gujarat Municipalities Act, 1963 for giving land to the petitioner on 99 years lease. By Resolutions dated 10th March, 1997 read with dated 21st July, 1997 of the State Government, the land was leased to the petitioner for construction of office for 30 years. Consequently, the Collector passed order dated 21st June, 1997 permitting the respondent NO.3 Municipality to lease the land to the petitioner;
(v) A new lease deed was required to be executed in light of the aforesaid grant, however no lease deed was executed in favour of the petitioner. In the order of grant dated 21st June, 1997, certain conditions were imposed against the petitioner;
(vi) On the ground that the building was being used for the purpose other than office use and social Page 3 of 9 HC-NIC Page 3 of 9 Created On Tue Aug 01 01:55:39 IST 2017 C/SCA/16810/2003 CAV JUDGMENT and cultural functions were held at the place in contravention of the conditions of grant, notices were issued to the petitioner on 23rd April, 2003 and 13th August, 2003 as to why the lease should not be cancelled and as to why land should not be assumed by the State Government;
(vii) It appears that Collector exercised his powers under Section 258(1) of the Gujarat Municipalities Act and by order dated 08th August, 2003 suspended the implementation of Resolution of respondent No.3 Municipality on the ground of breach of conditions.
4. It was submitted on behalf of the petitioner that before passing the impugned order, petitioner- association was not given any opportunity of hearing. It was submitted that Collector had no authority to cancel the grant. It was submitted that once the land was granted for office use of petitioner-association, it could not have been taken back by single stroke executive fiat.
4.1 On the other hand, it was highlighted by respondent authorities that in view of grant of land as per Resolution dated 10th March, 1997 and 21st July, 1997 followed by order of grant dated 21st June, 1997 containing the conditions, lease deed which was earlier executed, lost its efficacy and new lease deed was required to be executed which was not done. It was next submitted that there was no permission to the petitioner-association to put up a pakka construction and erect building. The petitioner without taking any Page 4 of 9 HC-NIC Page 4 of 9 Created On Tue Aug 01 01:55:39 IST 2017 C/SCA/16810/2003 CAV JUDGMENT permission started activity of constructing out pakka construction and building which was erected was in clear violation of Raja Chitthi and was without permission.
4.2 On behalf of the respondent authorities, affidavit-in-reply came to be filed to point out certain subsequent developments. Learned Assistant Government Pleader also placed on record the Panchnama of the place recently carried out on 07th June, 2017 of the Circle Officer together with photographs forming part of the Panchnama.
5. By order dated 21st June, 1997 the Collector, Bharuch, granted land in question to the petitioner on lease basis for 30 years which was with reference to State Government's Resolutions dated 10th March, 1997 and 21st July, 1997. The said order of grant contained certain conditions. The first condition was that petitioner was required to use the place only for the purpose of its office. The second condition was that before putting up any construction, permission of respondent No.3-Ankleshwar Municipality was required to be taken. Amount of Rs.02,638/- would be required to be paid by the petitioner to the Municipality. Next condition was that after the order of grant, necessary lease deed ought to have been executed. It was the fifth condition that without permission of the State Government, land shall not be alienated or transferred in any way and the petitioner would be liable to pay government taxes, revenue and cess as may be payable. It was provided that upon breach of any of the Page 5 of 9 HC-NIC Page 5 of 9 Created On Tue Aug 01 01:55:39 IST 2017 C/SCA/16810/2003 CAV JUDGMENT conditions, grant of land would be treated as automatically cancelled and land shall be resumed by the State Government.
5.1 The impugned order whereby grant was cancelled was based on breach of conditions. A notice dated 13th June, 2003 came to be issued from the office of the Collector to the petitioner, in which it was pointed out that petitioner-association had committed breach of conditions of grant. It was pointed out that land was being used for some Manav Vikas Bhavan for setting up stalls/shops of craft market, it was given for marriage and birth day celebration purpose and some other activities of preparing advertisement boards were also being carried on. The petitioner further faced the breach of condition of Raja Chitthi dated 28th January, 1993 as it was stated that though condition No.7 of order dated 21st June, 1997, the grant was liable to be cancelled as the petitioner had put up pakka building without permission.
5.2 The violation and breach of conditions was evidently established. The material on record showed that building was started to be used by the petitioner-association only for various purposes other than office use. A copy of advertisement for holding craft market in the building, copy of invitation card of marriage ceremony held in the building and about the building having been used for birth day celebrations of one Dr.Girish Purohit are on record of the petition. Said Dr.Girish Purohit gave a statement and admitted that the building was used for Mundan Page 6 of 9 HC-NIC Page 6 of 9 Created On Tue Aug 01 01:55:39 IST 2017 C/SCA/16810/2003 CAV JUDGMENT Ceremony and one Mr.Riaz Iqbal admitted to have held in the building a marriage. One Mr.Pavan Kumar Kushvaha stated that the building was given for different purposes on rent and he was acting as booking agent. Learned advocate for the petitioner was at his receiving end when confronted with the materials which demonstrated that building was used for different purposes in breach of conditions and the very purpose of grant.
5.3 A Panchnama dated 07th June, 2017 by Circle Officer, Ankleshwar, placed on record. It revealed that building was in closed condition. It was depicted that certain chairs are lying scattered inside, old baggage in deteriorated condition and the building was in a non-maintained unused condition since long. Even glasses of windows were seen in broken condition and it could be seen that the building was not in use. The photographs showing the state of affairs were also produced which was part of the Panchnama. It could not be disputed by learned advocate for the petitioner that building is not in use.
5.4 Furthermore, it is uncontrovertedly stated in the affidavit filed by respondent No.2-Collector dated 06th April, 2009 that the petitioner-O.N.G.C. Employees Association was registered before 11th July, 2002, however as per letter dated 11th July, 2002, the recognition of the O.N.G.C. employees association-the petitioner herein has been withdrawn and new union in the name of ONG Mazdoor Sangh has been recognised as per the majority of members at the Ankleshwar Work Page 7 of 9 HC-NIC Page 7 of 9 Created On Tue Aug 01 01:55:39 IST 2017 C/SCA/16810/2003 CAV JUDGMENT Center. A copy of the letter is addressed to the General Secretary of the petitioner-association by GGM (Per)-Chief Employee Relations, ONGC dated 11th July, 2002 which states that pursuant to the verification of unions' membership through secret ballot, as communicated by Ministry of Labour, Government of India, by its letter dated 31st May, 2002, ONG Mazdoor Sangh (BMS) had emerged as a majority union at Ankleshwar Work Center. It was, therefore, stated that the recognition of the petitioner-association conferred on 02/03rd January, 1978 was withdrawn under the Code of Discipline. Therefore, it is a yet another undisputed position that the petitioner's recognition no more exists with the employer and the petitioner- association has lost its majority long back to lost its recognition.
6. In the aforesaid view, when the breach of the conditions of grant has been clearly shown and further emerged an undisputed position that the recognition of the petitioner-association has been withdrawn, the petitioner cannot get any relief in this petition. As the violation of conditions of grant are shown by placing on record clear facts in that regard, the order of the State Government cancelling the grant and seeking to resume the possession was manifestly just, legal and proper. When the petitioner-association does not exist and its recognition has been withdrawn, no right of whatsoever kind and of whatsoever extent could survive for the petitioner. When the impugned order was passed, recognition of the petitioner-association was not Page 8 of 9 HC-NIC Page 8 of 9 Created On Tue Aug 01 01:55:39 IST 2017 C/SCA/16810/2003 CAV JUDGMENT there. In these circumstances, the contention of breach of natural justice falls flat as no prejudice has occasioned in any way to the petitioner in passing the impugned orders.
7. For the foregoing reasons, the meritless petition is liable to be dismissed and the same is hereby dismissed. Rule is discharged. Interim relief is vacated forthwith. No order as to cost.
(N.V.ANJARIA, J.) FURTHER ORDER At this stage, learned advocate Mr.Chirag Patel requests that interim stay which was granted by this Court may be continued for a period of four weeks.
In the facts and circumstances of the case and in view of what is held in the judgment, request could not be exceeded to. Hence, rejected.
(N.V.ANJARIA, J.) Anup Page 9 of 9 HC-NIC Page 9 of 9 Created On Tue Aug 01 01:55:39 IST 2017