Calcutta High Court
T. D. Kumar & Brothers Private Limited & ... vs Union Of India & Others on 23 May, 2019
Author: Soumen Sen
Bench: Soumen Sen, Ravi Krishan Kapur
ORDER
GA 1161 of 2019
APOT No. 39 of 2019
With
WP No. 171 of 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
Civil Appellate Jurisdiction
ORIGINAL SIDE
T. D. KUMAR & BROTHERS PRIVATE LIMITED & ANOTHER
Versus
UNION OF INDIA & OTHERS
BEFORE:
The Hon'ble JUSTICE SOUMEN SEN
The Hon'ble JUSTICE RAVI KRISHAN KAPUR Date : 23rd May, 2019 Appearance:
Mr. Madhu Kant Suralia, (Appellant No. 2 / in person).
Mr. Abhijit Chakrabarti, Chief Law Officer (I/C), KOPT.
Mr. Siddhajyoti Biswas, Sr. Law Officer, KOPT.
Mr. Debdas Dutta, Sr. Law Officer, KOPT.
Pursuant to the notice, KOPT is represented by Mr. Abhijit Chakrabarti, Chief Law Officer in Charge.
By consent of the parties, the appeal and the application are taken up together and disposed of by this order.
This appeal is directed against an order passed by Justice Subrata Talukdar on 5th April 2019 by which the writ petitioners were directed to file written notes of argument and objections in respect of the joint inspection report received by the writ 2 petitioners. The Learned Single Judge was of the view that since the petitioner company has been served with the joint inspection report, it would suffice in the event in the written notes of argument the writ petitioners are permitted to indicate their objections. It appears from record that the writ petitioner No. 2 in the capacity as constituted attorney of the writ petitioner No. 1 was present at the time of inspection along with his advocate but he refused to put his signature on the Minutes of the meeting on a specious plea that the said Minutes was not prepared at the venue. However, the petitioners appear to have filed an application taking exception to the said report. Since one of the grounds for eviction appears to be unauthorized construction, in our view, a joint inspection report should be prepared in presence of the parties, as it is likely to form part of the evidence in the proceedings. No party should be prejudiced by a report which may be used against other party, and in all fairness, in our view, such inspection report should have been prepared in presence of the parties.
Under such circumstances, let a joint inspection take place on 31st May 2019 at 12 noon, for which no further notice shall be served upon either of the parties, and in the event the petitioners are not represented on the said date, the earlier joint inspection report prepared on behalf of KOPT shall be taken to be correct and the Estate Officer shall decide the matter on 3 the basis of the existing joint inspection report, after taking into consideration the exception filed by the writ petitioners, in accordance with law. It is made clear that the Minutes of the proceedings should be drawn on that date itself in presence of the parties and the writ petitioners shall sign the Minutes of the said meeting with their comments, if any, and may supplement such objection by a detailed representation, if they feel it necessary, but not later than one week from 31st May 2019.
In the event a fresh report is prepared in terms of this order, the Estate Officer shall hear the matter afresh on the basis of the said joint inspection report and, if necessary, shall permit oral examination of the witnesses of either of the parties and shall conclude such proceedings by 5th July 2019.
The petitioners shall by 30th May 2019 deposit a sum of Rs. 10 lakh with the KOPT authorities as a condition precedent for availing this opportunity, as we are of the view that on 19th March 2019 the explanation offered for not signing the joint inspection report is not convincing, failing which the final order passed by the Estate Officer on 7th May 2019 shall remain. Unless there are compelling reasons, the Estate Officer shall not grant any adjournment to either of the parties. We make it clear that we have not gone into the merits of the matter and the Estate Officer shall decide the matter following the principles of natural justice and keeping in mind the decision of the Supreme Court in 4 New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs. Nusli Neville Wadia reported at 2008 (3) SCC 279.
The order impugned is modified to the aforesaid extent subject to the appellants / petitioners depositing Rs. 10 lakh as directed.
The application and the appeal stand disposed of. However, there shall be no order as to costs.
(SOUMEN SEN, J.) (RAVI KRISHAN KAPUR, J.) S. Kumar