Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Supreme Court - Daily Orders

Meena Devi vs Union Of India on 8 December, 2017

Bench: Ranjan Gogoi, R. Banumathi

                                                                                          1


     ITEM NO.25                           COURT NO.3                   SECTION XVI

                                S U P R E M E C O U R T O F        I N D I A
                                        RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

     SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) NO(S)……………………/2017
                                            DIARY NO(S). 36264/2017
     (ARISING OUT OF IMPUGNED FINAL JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 13-01-2016
     IN MJC NO. 4115/2014 PASSED BY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT
     PATNA)

     MEENA DEVI & ANR.                                                  PETITIONER(S)

                                                     VERSUS

     UNION OF INDIA & ORS.                           RESPONDENT(S)
     (IA   NO.129211/2017-CONDONATION OF  DELAY  IN  FILING   AND  IA
     NO.129215/2017-EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T. AND IA NO.129217/2017-
     DELETING THE NAME OF RESPONDENT)

     Date : 08-12-2017 This petition was called on for hearing today.

     CORAM :              HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RANJAN GOGOI
                          HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE R. BANUMATHI

     For Petitioner(s)                   Mr.   Saju Jacob, Adv.
                                         Mr.   Shariq Ahmed, Adv.
                                         Mr.   S.N. Mishra, Adv.
                                         Mr.   Sunil Kumar Verma, AOR
     For Respondent(s)

                           UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
                                              O R D E R

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the relevant material.

Delay condoned.

Exemption from filing O.T. is granted. Application for deletion of the proforma respondents Nos. 10 to 28 is allowed at the risk of the Signature Not Verified petitioners.

VINOD LAKHINA Date: 2017.12.09 20:20:03 IST Reason:  2 The case of the petitioners appears to be that they are entitled to employment on the second criteria spelt out by the Government Policy, namely, that their land and residential accommodation were acquired for the Ganga Rail Bridge Project.

In the show cause notice dated 10th March, 2015 filed by the respondent No.4 before the High Court, it was stated that the claim of the petitioners was dismissed on the ground that the petitioners do not satisfy either of the two eligibility criteria i.e. less than 20 decimals of land has been acquired or house has been acquired. Learned counsel for the petitioners urges that this is plainly incorrect.

The High Court did not entertain the contempt petition on the ground that it is open for the petitioners to challenge the decision of the Railways Authority and the facts recorded therein.

It is our considered view that the contentions of the petitioners give rise to certain disputed questions which would be more appropriate for adjudication in an appropriate jurisdiction other than the summary jurisdiction in contempt law.  3

We, therefore, do not entertain the present Special Leave Petition but leave it open for the petitioners to challenge the decision of the Railway Authority. In the event such a challenge is made, having regard to the fact that the petitioners have been without employment for a long time the Court before whom such challenge is brought shall decide the matter as expeditiously as possible.

With the aforesaid observations the present Special Leave Petition is disposed of.

 [VINOD LAKHINA]                                   [ASHA SONI]
       AR-cum-PS                                  BRANCH OFFICER