Bombay High Court
Rashtriya Chemicals And Fertilisers ... vs State Of Maharashtra Through The ... on 17 October, 2025
Author: G. S. Kulkarni
Bench: G. S. Kulkarni
902 WP 11702-23.DOC
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
LAXMI
SUBHASH
SONTAKKE WRIT PETITION NO. 11702 OF 2023
Digitally signed
by LAXMI
SUBHASH
SONTAKKE
Date: 2025.10.28
18:21:06 +0530
Rashtriya Chemicals and Fertilisers Ltd. ...Petitioners
Versus
State of Maharashtra & Ors. ...Respondents
_______
Mr. Anand R. Pai a/w. Mr. Sheroy M. Bodhanwalla, a/w. Ms. Sayali Puri, a/w. Mr.
Akash Singh a/w. Mr. Shreyas Thakur a/w. Mr. Rohan Jadhav, i/b. M.S.
Bodhanwala & Co.Advocates & Solicitors, for Petitioner.
Ms. M. P. Thakur, AGP for Respondent -State.
_______
CORAM: G. S. KULKARNI &
AARTI SATHE, JJ.
DATE: 17th OCTOBER 2025
P.C.
1. The Petitioner in the present proceedings has brought to the fore a disturbing sequence of events, in regard to which the Court had an occasion to hear the parties and pass detailed orders in the previous proceedings, as also in the present proceedings. The issue is an unwarranted situation of law and order being created by agitations (protests/demonstrations) by individuals who purportedly claim to be the Project Affected Persons (PAPs), who are making a claim for employment with the Petitioner, after a period of 33 years of the establishment of its unit at Thal in the Raigad District. According to the Petitioner, there is no legal obligation on the Petitioner to grant such employment, as the Petitioner has contended that the issue had attained finality in terms of an order dated 13 th February 2007 passed by this Court in the proceedings of Writ Petition No. 6408 of 2005 (Rashtriya Chemicals & Fertilizers Limited And Another Vs. The State of Page 1 of 16 Laxmi ::: Uploaded on - 28/10/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 31/10/2025 22:26:46 ::: 902 WP 11702-23.DOC Maharashtra & Ors.). Mr. Pai, learned Counsel for the Petitioner, submits that there is much more to be said regarding these agitations.
2. This Court on 7th October 2025 passed a detailed order inter-alia recording that the Petitioner's unit at Thal, Raigad was completed in the year 1992. To set up the said unit, there was acquisition of land, for which apart from the compensation, the Petitioner complied with its understanding with the State Government to provide employment to 385 project-affected persons in the said unit to be commissioned. There were disputes which had taken place as to whether such obligation to grant employment to 385 PAPs was complied by the petitioner. The proceedings on such dispute had reached this Court in Writ Petition No. 6408 of 2005 (Rashtriya Chemicals & Fertilizers Limited And Another Vs. The State of Maharashtra & Ors.) (supra). In the said proceedings, this Court had appointed a former Judge of this Court Mr. A. B. Palkar as a Commissioner to examine the issue as to whether 385 PAPs as originally agreed were granted employment. The learned Commissioner submitted his report dated 11 th January, 2007 in which it was inter alia observed, that not only the Petitioner granted employment to 385 PAPs, however, more than such agreed employment, infact 615 persons were granted employment. All these facts were noted by this Court in its detailed order passed on the present proceedings dated 7 th October 2025 which is required to be noted, which reads thus:-
" P.C.
1. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties on the backdrop of the earlier orders passed in the present proceedings. We find that the issue in regard to the Petitioner providing employment to the Project Affected Persons (PAPs) in respect of its project at Thal, Raigad has attained finality. This is clear from the fact that this Court had appointed retired Judge of this Court, Justice A.B.Palkar, as the learned Commissioner to undertake an inquiry. Justice A.B.Palkar (Retired) submitted his report dated 11th January 2007, in which his Lordship observed that the Petitioner employed more than 385 PAPs and requisite certificates have been issued by the Collector/Officer for more than 385 families. The following observations as made in the said report of the learned Court Commissioner are required to be noted which read thus:Page 2 of 16
Laxmi ::: Uploaded on - 28/10/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 31/10/2025 22:26:46 ::: 902 WP 11702-23.DOC "At the cost of repetition it needs to be stated that RCF has employed more than 385 project affected persons and the certificates issued by the Collector office were more than one member of 385 families although the exact number can not be stated. From the evidence before the Commission 593 persons have been employed by the RCF on the basis of PAP certificates and even if the nine persons as mentioned in the Annexture to the letter dated 3rd August 2006 are not considered, the number would be 584 which is far above 385."
2. Taking into consideration such report, the Division Bench of this Court in the proceedings of Writ Petition 6408/2005, accepted such report and made the following categorical observations in its order dated 13 February 2007 passed on the said proceedings:
"... ... ... It is thus clear that the Petitioners have complied with the agreement which they arrived at pursuant to the meeting which was held on 20.12.1979. This has been put in writing by the Petitioners and communicated to the Collector by a letter dated 25.3.2005.
***
11. Having said so, 'it must be held, on the facts of the case that the Petitioners have discharged their responsibilities which they had agreed to. The letter which we have earlier adverted to, also indicates that if in the future on account of expansion, recruitment is to be done, then preference will be given to the families of the project affected persons, subject to what is set out therein.
i) The Petitioners have complied with the obligations of providing employment to the 385 project affected families and or persons named by them and are not duty bound to provided any further guaranteed employment except to give preference in case more jobs are generated by expansion of the project to families of P.A.P's, as set out in the letter dated 25.3.2005.
ii) The Collector of the District is directed to conduct an enquiry for the purpose of issuance of certificate to other than the 385 who were eligible. If the Collector comes to the, finding, that 180 families have been issued more than: one certificate, then in the certificates issued to second or third person in the same family, to record that one member has already been provided employment.Page 3 of 16
Laxmi ::: Uploaded on - 28/10/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 31/10/2025 22:26:46 ::: 902 WP 11702-23.DOC
iii) If there be any law and order situation, Respondent No. 3 to seek assistance of the Collector and police authorities who will provide effective and immediate protection to the Petitioners, their employees and property and to see that no demonstration, or demonstrators gather atleast within 100 mrs. of the entrance gate of the Petitioners' plant or the boundary of their property.
3. In the teeth of aforesaid observations and compliance as made by the Petitioner, we are at a loss to understand as to how the Collector is nonetheless taking a stand that the Petitioner has not complied its obligation in granting the full quota of employment. We are surprised that the reply affidavit filed by Shri. Bharat Waghmare, Deputy Collector (Rehabilitation) Officer, when in para 9, 11 and 12, he takes a position completely contrary to the Orders of the Division Bench of this Court and that too without referring to the report of learned Court Commissioner, as appointed by this Court, wherein categorical orders have been passed by this Court recording compliance. In fact such affidavit in our opinion amounts to breach of the orders passed by this Court. However, before we proceed to consider such issue, we would permit Ms.Thakur, learned AGP to take instructions. Also to enable the Collector, Raigad to file a clear affidavit to be placed on record of this proceeding, that in view of the aforesaid orders of this Court the Petitioner has no more obligation to grant employment to the PAPs and more particularly in terms of the report of the learned Court Commissioner, we may observe that clear orders passed by the Division Bench of this Court in Writ Petition No. 6408/2005 are overlooked in the said affidavit filed on behalf of the Collector, Raigad. If such an affidavit is filed, further appropriate orders can be passed in this Petition. We accordingly adjourn the proceedings to 14th October 2025. (HOB)"
3. On the aforesaid backdrop, owing to the agitations which had recently disrupted the functioning of the Petitioner's unit at Raigad, the present Petition came to be moved before the Court. The proceedings were heard yesterday (16 th October 2025), when the Court considering the submissions made on behalf of the parties and on the materials as placed on record, passed the following order granting a protection to the Petitioner, thereby restraining unwarranted agitations:-
"P.C.
1. On the present proceedings, we had passed a detailed order on 7th October 2025. However, the Collector has not filed any affidavit but Page 4 of 16 Laxmi ::: Uploaded on - 28/10/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 31/10/2025 22:26:46 ::: 902 WP 11702-23.DOC the Additional Collector Shri Sunil Pundalik Thorve has filed his affidavit dated 13th October 2025.
2. Although the affidavit clearly states that the petitioner has complied with all the obligations of providing employment to the 385 project affected families and in fact due to illegal actions on the part of District Rehabilitation Officer of Raigad, 671 persons were issued PAP certificates and were granted employment, which was far more than the employment to be provided by the petitioner i.e., to 385 (Project Affected Persons). However, some contents of the affidavit, in our opinion, are certainly objectionable would amount to a position being taken contrary to the orders passed by the Court. Ms. Thakur, learned Additional GP, on instructions, submits that proper affidavit of the Collector would be placed on record. Let the same be filed by tomorrow.
3. We, accordingly, list this proceeding tomorrow i.e. 17th October 2025 at 3.00 p.m.
4. At this stage, Mr. Pai, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed on record a compilation of documents and more particularly newspaper report in the local newspaper - Lokmat dated 15th October 2025 that the Project Affected Persons are holding illegal gatherings outside the premises of the petitioner, which is a public sector undertaking, disturbing the functioning and the ingress and egress of the vehicles containing harmful chemicals. This according to him is at the behest of extraneous persons.
5. We make it clear that to deal with any law and order situation is usually an obligation of the Collector and Commissioner of Police, District-Raigad. There cannot be any illegal demands for employment and more particularly in view of the orders passed by this Court and as clearly observed in the orders passed by this Court that there was no more an obligation on the petitioner - RCF to provide any further employment to PAPs. This has also been accepted by the Additional Collector in today's affidavit. Such unlawful gatherings therefore ought not to happen. We accordingly order that no gathering be permitted by the Collector/Commissioner of Police within the distance of 500 meters from the gate of the petitioner's premises and appropriate law and order situation in this regard is required to be maintained so that the functioning of the Public Sector Undertaking is not disturbed, in any manner and that too on any unwarranted demands of the nature as observed hereinabove. which are contrary to the orders passed by this Court. We also direct the Commissioner of Police to take appropriate actions against such persons in accordance with law, who may indulge into any illegalities and disturb the law and order situation. Such disturbance shall also be considered as breach of orders passed by this Court, for which further appropriate orders can be passed.Page 5 of 16
Laxmi ::: Uploaded on - 28/10/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 31/10/2025 22:26:46 ::: 902 WP 11702-23.DOC
6. With the aforesaid observations, we adjourn the proceedings for tomorrow i.e. 17th October 2025 at 3.00 p.m.
7. Parties to act on authenticated copy of this order.
8. At this stage, Ms. Thakur, learned Additional G.P. has already pointed out that the persons who undertake such agitations have already made a statement before this Court which is recorded in the order dated 5th November 2020 that they would not undertake agitation within 100 meters of the gate. However, as we are informed that there are regular transportation of chemicals and it is causing hurdles, we have passed the aforesaid order of 500 meters which is also in the interest of all such persons."
4. On the aforesaid backdrop, the proceedings are before us today. Ms. Thakur, learned Government Pleader, has placed on record an affidavit filed by Mr. Kisan N. Jawale, District Collector, Raigad. We have perused the said affidavit. We are quite surprised at the stand taken therein, particularly in paragraphs 6 and 7, which, in our considered view, causes a distortion and/or is likely to mislead the correct factual position. In the given circumstances, the Project Affected Persons (PAPs) ought not to have carried an impression and/or any expectation which is not supported by the record. If the PAPs were given an impression that there is some expansion of the Petitioner's unit hence vacancies would occur, which are likely to be filled by the Petitioner, such impression could be gathered, only on the basis of an appropriate communication recorded in writing from the Petitioner (RCF). Hence, when there was no such information or communication to that effect, it would be wholly incorrect for any authority to state that there is likelihood of any vacancies of employment so as to cause any unrest on such issue.
5. The reason also being, that paragraph 7 of the affidavit refers to the orders passed by this Court, on the basis of the report submitted by the learned Court Commissioner, which in turn refers to a communication dated 25 th March 2005 addressed by the Petitioner to the Collector, Raigad recording a complete compliance on the employment issues. We deem it appropriate to reproduce the relevant portion of the order passed by this Court in Writ Petition No. 6408 of 2005 dated 13th February 2007, which reads thus:-
Page 6 of 16Laxmi ::: Uploaded on - 28/10/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 31/10/2025 22:26:46 ::: 902 WP 11702-23.DOC "1. Petitioner No.1 is a Government of India undertaking. It has factories at various places one such place being Thal, Taluka Alibaug, District Raigad. Petitioner No.2 is a shareholder. In or about 1978, about 259.83 hectares of land from the villages Thal, Boris-Gunjis and Navgaon, Taluka Alibaug, District Raigad was acquired by the State Government to enable Petitioner No.1 to set up their chemicals and fertilizers plant at Thal, Taluka Alibaug, District Raigad.
2. The State of Maharashtra has enacted various laws and has also issued Government resolutions for resolving the problems of the persons directly and indirectly affected due to acquisition of the lands for the purpose of certain projects. According to the Petitioners the gist of the above Government resolutions is that only one person per family of PAPs (Project Affected Persons) may be given priority in employment in Government service subject to such persons fulfilling the minimum educational requirements and fitness and other conditions. The Petitioners state that the Thal project of the Petitioners is not covered by various Acts. On account of acquisition of the lands, 385 families were affected from the aforesaid villages who were identified by various authorities. The project affected persons certificates (PAPs) have been issued by the authorities to such persons.
The Petitioners state that during the period of 1979 to 1993, RCF has employed 615 PAPs against the certificates issued by the Collector. Apart from that, various local persons were engaged as contractors who have, in turn, engaged local residents as contract workers, a vast majority of whom are related to the PAP families. The Petitioners contend that they have complied with all their obligations towards the PAPs under the Government resolutions/Circulars and have also given preference to local residents.
3. Inspite of the fact that the Petitioners have employed displaced families on account of acquisition the collector has been issuing certificates to the above persons from the same/different families in respect of one acquired plot of land. Such PAPs it is submitted, are not entitled for employment. The claims and proceedings filed by PAPs, were amicably settled by 1990. The settlements were arrived at on the condition that no fresh demands for the employment of PAPs would be entertained. Due to globalisation of Indian economy, there is a substantial reduction of subsidies given by the Government to the fertilizer industry and there is fierce competition from the private sector, the management of RCF was forced to adopt stringent measures including Voluntary Retirement Scheme (VRS). The company is not inducting any new employees and had to take steps to cut down the costs, so as to compete in the market.
4. Inspite of providing employment to more persons than what they had agreed to, agitations are being carried on by Respondent No.5. A situation was created at one stage, where the Chief General Manager of RCF was abducted by some PAPs and was released only after the intervention by police and Central Industrial Security Force (CIFS) Page 7 of 16 Laxmi ::: Uploaded on - 28/10/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 31/10/2025 22:26:46 ::: 902 WP 11702-23.DOC personnel employed at Thal plant. The agitators are also blocking the employees of RCF from going to the plant and threatening to block the goods carrying fertilizers from the plant for supply to various destinations. The Petitioners have suffered on account of such activities. The Petitioners fear for the safety of the plant as also the workers, both officers and workmen. The Respondent - State Government has failed to take any action. A meeting came to be held on 7.3.2005. The minutes were recorded and communicated to the Collector by a letter dated 25.3.2005. The minutes as recorded and communicated read as under :-
"In all 385 number of families/khatedars were identified by the office as project affected persons (PAPs) due to land acquisition by RCF. Hence only 385 number of persons were supposed to be given employment as PAPs. However, we have offered employment to 615 number of PAPs as against 385 number of families/khatedars. In short we have given employment to almost two persons per family/khatedar which is much more than agree to.
At RCF, Thal present manpower is excess than requirement, and as a result, we have introduced Voluntary Retirement Scheme to rationalize surplus manpower since August 2001.
From the year 1996, total 29 number of employees have died during the employment. But we are unable to offer the employment on compassionate ground also.
It was last submitted that in case requirement arises in future due to expansion of RCF, Thal the preference may be given to the PAPs, subject to the genuineness of the PAP certificate and also as per their qualification, experience and suitability."
5. The Petitioners by the present Petition have prayed for various declarations including that several enactments as stated in prayer clause
(a) are not applicable to Thal project. For a further declaration that they have complied with all their obligations and decisions taken at the meeting dated 20.12.1978, as also a declaration that Respondent No.3 ought not to have issued the certificates to the persons over and above the 385 project affects families in respect of the lands admeasuring 259.83 hectares acquired for Thal plant. Various other reliefs are sought for including protection for the Petitioners plant, machinery and personnel.
6. A reply has been filed by the District Resettlement Officer. It is stated that the company unanimously agreed that the company will provide employment to one member each, from 385 project affected families. The employment was to be provided within a span of 2 to 3 years. It is pointed out that preferential order was also finalized which was as follows :-
Page 8 of 16Laxmi ::: Uploaded on - 28/10/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 31/10/2025 22:26:46 ::: 902 WP 11702-23.DOC
(a) A person from the project affected family on account of land acquisition.
(b) A person from the joint family being a Pot Hissedar of the land acquired.
(c) Landless labourer affected by land acquisition.
(d) A local person from the area.
. It is stated that while giving the employment in the company of Petitioner No.1, the Petitioner company has not followed preferential order agreed by it before the Chief Minister of the State of Maharashtra. The Respondent - State therefore called on the Petitioner to disclose the details of the persons employed right from 1978 till date. PAP certificates, it is submitted, were issued in terms of the norms and the enactments in force. In the matter of law and enforcement, it is pointed out that the Collectorate and the police authorities have taken effective steps to maintain law and order situation in and around the project of Thal Fertilizer Plant and complete protection of the plant. An explanation was sought to be given to the abduction of the Chief General Manager of Petitioner No.1. The certificates issued by the office of the Collector, it is submitted are as per the statutory provisions.
7. Considering the controversy, in order to find out whether the employment had been given to project affected persons by an order dated 23.11.2006, we had appointed Justice A.B. Palkar (Retd.) of this Court,as a one man commission to submit a report in terms of the Reference, after hearing all the parties affected and who were before this Court. The terms of the Reference were as under :-
1). Whether the Petitioner (1) has employed 385 project affected persons ;
2). Whether the Collector has issued certificates to more than one member of the 385 project affected families and if so, how many ;
3). How many project affected persons are employed by Petitioner No.1 ;
4). Whether the Collector has issued certificates to any one not covered in the originally identified 385 families ; and
5). Whether the Collector has issued certificates without supporting documents and if so, how many in number.
8. The report has been submitted on 11.1.2007. The copies of the report were made available to the parties. Earlier Respondent No.5 was allowed to participate in the proceeding before the Commissioner. However, it appears that on 4.11.2006 an order was passed by this Page 9 of 16 Laxmi ::: Uploaded on - 28/10/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 31/10/2025 22:26:46 ::: 902 WP 11702-23.DOC Court, that the earlier order of this Court does not envisage participation beyond the Collector and the Petitioners. Respondent No.5 who were absent on the day the order was passed, chose not to file any review against the said order. The order of this Court dated 23.2.2006, clearly set out 'that all the parties affected who are before this Court be heard'.
. The Commissioner in its findings has recorded that out of 385 original khatedars, 376 khatedars were given employment, nine others were given employment based on affidavit of the original land holders, that no family members was eligible and the employment may be given to the said persons. Apart from that, another 198 members of the said families have also been employed, thus making a total of 593 employees. Apart from that 22 others were also given employment as their lands subsequently had been taken for the purpose of road widening project. In all 615 persons have been employed.
. In so far as the second point is concerned,the learned Commissioner recorded a finding, that the Collector has issued the certificates to more than one person against each of the project affected family. The agreement was to restrict PAP certificates to 385 persons.
. So far as issue No.3 is concerned, we have already set out the figures. As per the evidence recorded by the Commissioner, 593 persons have been employed by RCF on the basis of PAP certificates and even if nine persons are excluded, the number will be 584.
. In so far as issue No.4 is concerned, a finding was recorded that there was no material placed on record to show that the certificates were issued to the persons who were not connected with 385 families although more number of certificates were issued. Further a finding was recorded that the District Rehabilitation Officer admitted that in the case of 108 families more than one certificate was issued.
. In answer to last issue, it was held that the certificates were issued not on the basis of the supporting documents. A statement has been made before this Court by Smt.Gaikar, that the Collectorate office was making enquiries against the erring officer and was in the process of cancelling the certificates which could not be given Mr.Garud before the Commission could not make statement whether any certificate has been cancelled. The certificates were issued on the basis of the list provided by the S.L.A.O. and the list given by the local M.L.A. and no supporting evidence was produced.
9. The report was made available to all the parties. The grievance of the learned counsel for Respondent No.5, was that they were not allowed to participate before the Commission. From the order of the Commission, we find that until the order passed by this Court on 14.11.2006, they were allowed to participate but were not allowed to participate thereafter. We have pointed out that Respondent No.5 took no steps to apply for recalling the order dated 14.11.2006. We have Page 10 of 16 Laxmi ::: Uploaded on - 28/10/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 31/10/2025 22:26:46 ::: 902 WP 11702-23.DOC however considered the report and material considered by the Commission and in the light of that we reject the contention on behalf of Respondent No.5 that the report of the commission should be set aside. We have noted that the Commission considered the documentary evidence produced by the Petitioners in support of their contentions. They have provided with employment, to 385 families. A further finding of fact has been recorded that 615 families have been provided the employment of which atleast 593 families were from families of project affected persons. We find no reason to interfere or defer from the finding recorded by the Commission in the absence of any documentary evidence, placed before us showing otherwise. We therefore, accept the report of the Commission and all the findings as set out therein.
. It is thus clear that the Petitioners have complied with the agreement which they arrived at pursuant to the meeting which was held on 20.12.1979. This has been put in writing by the Petitioners and communicated to the Collector by a letter dated 25.3.2005.
10. Having said so, we are faced with a situation were on account of farmers displaced by projects and having lost their means of livelihood consequent on their lands being fully or partly acquired, social tensions are being created in the locality one of which is for priority in jobs. The rehabilitation package in the instant case was for 385 families, whether they be joint family or not. On passage of time and on separation of undivided families, each branch of family it appears are seeking employment, consequent on the earning of the members of the joint family being not available to them. When one branch in an undivided family received employment, naturally there are other branches in the family which would be left out a job. The Petitioners really cannot be faulted as they have complied with their part of the agreement.
. The question really is, considering the Directive principles as set out in the constitution and more specifically Articles 39 and 43, where the State is enjoined within its economic capacity, to provide adequate means of livelihood and living wages, how does it meet this constitutional imperative in cases of displacement of families from their lands from which they earned their livelihood. Families are being displaced, on account of land acquisition, snatching away many a time their only source of livelihood. Instead of being provided adequate means of livelihood, they are being deprived of their only source of livelihood. No doubt the State does provide compensation for such deprivation. The reality however is, that such compensation on account of the erosion in the value of the rupee, increased cost of living, even if the entire capital is saved, is not sufficient. The land which has been acquired most of the time had sustained these families for generations. Large industrial projects cause displacement of farmers and labourers from their only source of livelihood. It is true that it may not be open to this Court, even considering the right to life, to issue any directions to the State authorities to provide guaranteed Page 11 of 16 Laxmi ::: Uploaded on - 28/10/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 31/10/2025 22:26:46 ::: 902 WP 11702-23.DOC employment to those displaced including to those whose cause is being espoused by Respondent No.5 in the Petition. This however, should be an eye opener to the State, policy makers and decision makers, that any policy which results in the families being displaced from the land for industrial projects or other projects, the State must fine tune the rehabilitation package, which apart from paying compensation for the lands acquired, will also as far as possible provide to such displaced families including agricultural labourers, preference for jobs in the industry that will come up. Needless to say that suitability will be a factor. However, considering that most of the time those displaced are illiterate or not trained for the jobs, the entrepreneurs including the State when it proposes to use the land to set up its own units ought to train and equip such persons. If industry in case of retrenchments or other circumstances, retrains employees for other suitable jobs, such an exercise, perhaps is required to make the concept of life, guaranteed under Article 21 more meaningful. Let us hasten to add, that we do not mean that the State is unaware of these situations or that it is not taking steps. The State is bound to act in accordance with the preambular concepts of the constitution. We only emphasise that so much more has to be done. An enlightened state, committed to economic and social justice must articulate these preambular concepts. Various schemes at various levels for providing employment are being initiated. A more practical approach is required in the context of the problems faced by displaced persons.
11. Having said so, it must be held, on the facts of the case that the Petitioners have discharged their responsibilities which they had agreed to. The letter which we have earlier adverted to, also indicates that if in the future on account of expansion, recruitment is to be done, then preference will be given to the families of the project affected persons, subject to what is set out therein.
12. In the above context, we will now consider the reliefs as prayed. It will be not possible for this Court to issue a writ or directions to restrain any persons who finds himself aggrieved, from exercising his right of peaceful demonstration as that right flows from the right to organize as also freedom of speech and expression. That however, does not mean, that it is open to any section of the citizens, to disobey lawful orders or the law and or to use means other than peaceful, to ventilate their grievance. A duty is cast on the citizens to adhere to the rule of law and to seek redressal by peaceful means. The right of peaceful protest is now a part of public law, to make authorities see the other point of view and then to effect changes in the law.
. The Petitioners however, are entitled to protection of their plant, machinery, vehicles and for the safety of their employees as also the contractors involved in work connected with the factory. The Respondent - State is duty bound to provide such protection. To contend that a situation arose in which the General Manager could be abducted is no answer. This would lead to anarchy. The Collector and Page 12 of 16 Laxmi ::: Uploaded on - 28/10/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 31/10/2025 22:26:46 ::: 902 WP 11702-23.DOC the Police authorities in the area are duty bound to provide protection and to take steps to disperse unruling mobs or those who break the law by following due procedure.
13. In the light of the above, the following order :-
i). The Petitioners have complied with the obligations of providing employment to the 385 project affected families and or persons named by them and are not duty bound to provided any further guaranteed employment except to give preference in case more jobs are generated by expansion of the project to families of P.A.P's, as set out in the letter dated 25.3.2005.
ii). The Collector of the District is directed to conduct an enquiry for the purpose of issuance of certificate to other than the 385 who were eligible. If the Collector comes to the finding, that 180 families have been issued more than one certificate, then in the certificates issued to second or third person in the same family, to record that one member has already been provided employment.
iii). If there be any law and order situation, Respondent No.3 to seek assistance of the Collector and police authorities who will provide effective and immediate protection to the Petitioners, their employees and property and to see that no demonstration, or demonstrators gather atleast within 100 mtrs. of the entrance gate of the Petitioners' plant or the boundary of their property.
. Rule is made absolute in the above terms. There shall however be no order as to costs"
(emphasis supplied)
6. Thus, in the aforesaid order this Court noted the assurance of the Petitioner (RCF) in the event jobs were to be generated on expansion of the project. This was in terms of the letter dated 25 th March 2005. We accordingly called for the said letter to be placed on record. The letter appears to be in specific terms. The contents of which are required to be noted which read thus:-
"Kindly, refer your letter dated 28.2.2005 vide which a meeting was convened in your office on 7th March 2005 at 4.00 p.m. over the Issue of employment of 120 PAPS.Page 13 of 16
Laxmi ::: Uploaded on - 28/10/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 31/10/2025 22:26:46 ::: 902 WP 11702-23.DOC As discussed in the meeting, we are furnishing herewith our detailed justification over the issue of employment of PAPs, along with related documents.
1. After the commencement of RCF project at Thal the issue of rehabilitation of PAPs was taken up by us in right earnest and a meeting was held with the then Hon. Chief Minister, Shri Sharad Pawar, Maharashtra State; other ministers and local leaders on 20.12.1978. As discussed and agreed in this meeting, a decision was taken that, the persons affected by acquisition of land for Thal Fertilizer Project would be rehabilitated by offering them suitable job according to their qualification, experience etc. It was further decided that the responsibility of identifying PAPs and Issuing necessary certificates shall be entrusted to Collector, Raigad district.
As per the G.R.no. AEM-1080/35/16-A dated 21st January 1980, it is obligatory on the part of RCF to offer employment to one person from each family who is meeting specification of Job/vacancies available.
2 In all 385 no. of families/khatedars were Identified by your office as Project Affected Persons (PAPs) due to land acquisition by RCF. Hence only 385 no. of persons were supposed to be given employment as PAPS. However, we have offered employment to 615 no. of PAPs as against 385 no. of families/khatedars. In short we have given employment to almost two persons per family/khatedar which is much more than agreed to. A
3. Again on 05.10.1990, we had an understanding with the various local political leaders of various political parties in regard to employment of PAPs. It was very specifically agreed by all the parties concerned that the issue of demand/claim for employment to PAPS was closed and was also agreed that, there will not be any new demand/claim for employment of PAPs in future. The list of PAPs given by these leaders were verified before employment. Even the Dy.Collector and Re-settlement Officer and Employment Officer were on our selection committee as members.
4. As per the understanding reached before the then Chief Minister, the subject employment was supposed to be given only till the period of 2/3 years from the commencement of the project. However, concerned authorities continued to issue the PAP certificates and as a goodwill gesture we had offered employment till the year 1992-93 that means almost upto 15 years from commencement of the project. Finally in the year 1993, RCF issued declaration in the local newspapers intimating to public in general and PAPs in particular that, henceforth no employment will be offered to the PAPs (copy enclosed).Page 14 of 16
Laxmi ::: Uploaded on - 28/10/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 31/10/2025 22:26:46 ::: 902 WP 11702-23.DOC 5 At RCF, Thal present manpower is excess than requirement, and as a result, we have introduced Voluntary Retirement Scheme to rationalize surplus manpower since August 2001.
6 From the year 1996, total 29 number of employees have died during the employment nut we are unable to offer the employment on compassionate ground also.
It is thus amply established from the above that we have more than fulfilled our legal as well as social obligation as far as PAPs' employment is concerned. Therefore, it is not possible for us to offer any more employment to the PAPS.
However, in case requirement arises in future due to expansion of RCF, Thal the preference may be given to the PAPs, subject to the genuineness of the PAP certificate and also as per their qualification, experience and suitability."
(emphasis supplied)
7. On a perusal of the aforesaid letter, it is evident that the Petitioner had not only complied with its obligation to provide employment to 385 Project Affected Persons (PAPs), however, in fact, extended such employment to two members of the PAP families in many cases. Thus the Petitioner employed 615 persons which was in excess of the agreed employment of 385 PAPs. Hence, the assurance now being referred by the Collector, is only in terms of what has been recorded in the last paragraph of the said letter, namely, that in the event of any future expansion, preference may be given to the PAPs, subject to the genuineness of their PAP certificates as well as their qualification, experience, and suitability. The last paragraph of the said letter appears to have been misread/misconstrued by the Collector, in the absence of any material/communication from the Petitioner/RCF that the Petitioner would be undertaking any fresh employment on account of any expansion. This more so, when no advertisement has been issued by the RCF notifying any vacancies to be filled up much less on account of any expansion. The contents of the last paragraph can only be understood in the limited context of a proposal by the RCF to undertake a fresh exercise of recruitment by issuing advertisements and notifying posts on any proposed expansion. Also the last paragraph of the aforesaid letter could never be construed as a blanket assurance of the Petitioner/RCF, that perpetually or in the ordinary Page 15 of 16 Laxmi ::: Uploaded on - 28/10/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 31/10/2025 22:26:46 ::: 902 WP 11702-23.DOC course of the business of the Petitioner, preference would be granted to the PAPs. The preference contemplated therein is clearly conditional and could be invoked only when recruitment process is actually undertaken on account of expansion.
8. We have not been informed by the Collector, even on affidavit, that any advertisement has been issued recently by the RCF notifying vacancies, so as to make the issue of preference to the PAPs at all relevant. It is, therefore, surprising as to how the Collector could form an impression that there was requirement for employment on account of any expansion. The Collector could not have acted in a manner, as if he has stepped into the shoes of the PAPs. Also the Collector cannot be influenced on any extraneous considerations or undue local pressure. In such context, the tenor and contents of the affidavit filed by the Collector have, in fact, surprised us. Thus, no assurances should be given by the office of the Collectorate, Raigad to the PAPs contrary to the Court's orders.
9. In view of the foregoing discussion, we direct the District Collector, Raigad, to clarify the correct position to the Project Affected Persons (PAPs) and to ensure that no false or misleading assurances are hereafter given by any officials of the Collectorate on any employment being granted by the Petitioner to the PAP's unless expressly informed by the Petitioner in terms of the communication dated 25th March 2005 (supra) in the context of any expansion. We make it clear that, in the event of any further disturbances or agitation on account of such misinformation, this Court would have no alternative but to hold the concerned officials of the Collectorate personally responsible for the consequences thereof. Stand over to 11th November 2025 (HOB) for compliance.
10. Needless to observe that orders passed earlier shall continue to operate and shall be complied the authorities.
(AARTI SATHE, J.) (G. S. KULKARNI, J.) Page 16 of 16 Laxmi ::: Uploaded on - 28/10/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 31/10/2025 22:26:46 :::