Chattisgarh High Court
Bhagwat Tiwari vs Steel Authority Of India on 20 August, 2025
1
2025:CGHC:41975
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
WPC No. 4401 of 2025
1 - Bhagwat Tiwari S/o J L Tawari Aged About 69 Years Of Shop No. 170 Situated In New
Civic Centre Bhilai, Durg, District Durg, C.G.
... Petitioner(s)
versus
1 - Steel Authority Of India Through Its Chairman, Having Its Corporate Office At Ispat
Bhavan, 3rd Floor, Lodhi Road, New Delhi- 110003.
2 - Bhilai Steel Plant (S A I L) Through Chief Executive Officer, Bhilai Steel Plant Bhilai,
District- Durg, C.G.
3 - Assistant General Manager (Shop, Lease And Licence) S A I L Bhilai Steel Plant, Bhilai,
District- Durg, C.G.
4 - Manager (Estate) Town Administration Department, S A I L Bhilai Steel Plant, Bhilai,
District- Durg, C.G.
5 - Additional Town Administrator (Admn.) S A I L Bhilai Steel Plant, Bhilai, District- Durg,
C.G.
6 - Assistant Manager Estate (Shops) S A I L Bhilai Steel Plant, Bhilai, District- Durg, C.G.
7 - Chief General Manager (T A And C S R) S A I L Bhilai Steel Plant, Bhilai, District-
Durg, C.G.
8 - Chief General Manager (Personnel) Corporate Office At Ispat Bhavan, 3rd Floor, Lodhi
Road, New Delhi- 110003.
9 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Revenue And Disaster
Management Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, C.G.
10 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Commerce And Industries Department,
Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, C.G.
11 - Union Of India Through Ministry Of Steel, Udyog Bhawan, New Delhi, 110011
... Respondent(s)
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Anmol Verma on behalf of Mr. Siddharth Dubey,
Advocate
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Niraj Baghel on behalf of Mr. R. K. Mishra, DSGI
Hon'ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma, Judge
Order on Board
20/08/2025
1. By way of the present petition, the petitioner is praying for the
following reliefs:
"10.1 To declare the resolution passed
in the 340th Meeting of the Board of
Directors held on 21st and 25th July,
2008 along with approved terms and
conditions of the allotment (leasing/sub-
leasing) as unconstitutional, bad in law
and void ab initio and as a consequence
quash/set-aside Annexure P/1A.
10.2 To set aside the offer
letter/demand letter dated 19.04.2013
issued to the petitioner pursuant to the
aforesaid resolutions Annexure P/1B.
10.3 To direct the concerned
respondents to re-consider the case of
the petitioner for renewal of lease deed
dated 22.04.1982 as per Clause-4 sub
clause (1) of the aforesaid deeds and as
sequitur re-calculate the amount to be
paid by the petitioner for renewal of
lease deeds dated 22.04.1982 as per
Clause 4 sub clause (1) of the aforesaid
deeds.
10.4 As sequitur to preceding clauses
10.1-10.3 issue a writ of mandamus
directing the concerned respondents to
issue a fresh offer letter/demand letter
to the petitioner.
10.5 To direct the concerned answering
respondents not to dispossess and/or
evict the petitioner from land bearing
plot Shop No. 119 situated in New Civic
Centre, Bhilai, District- Durg/ subject
leased property.
10.6 To pass an appropriate writ, order
or direction as this Hon'ble Court may
deem fit in the facts and circumstances
of the case."
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is
aggrieved by the resolution passed by the Board of Directors of
the Steel Authority of India Limited in its 340 th Meeting held on 21st
and 25th July, 2008, and the offer letter issued pursuant thereto. It
is submitted that pursuant to the said resolution, arbitrary charges
have been levied, and the lease rent has been increased
exponentially, in violation of the original terms of lease and without
affording any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.
3. Learned State counsel submits that the present petition is filed by
the petitioner after a delay of 17 years, therefore, the present
petition is not maintainable.
4. I have heard learned counsel for the respective parties and
perused the record with utmost circumspection.
5. Section 5 of Limitation Act, 1963 provides as under:
5. Extension of prescribed period in certain cases.--
Any appeal or any application, other than an application
under any of the provisions of Order XXI of the Code of
Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908), may be admitted after
the prescribed period, if the appellant or the applicant
satisfies the court that he had sufficient cause for not
preferring the appeal or making the application within
such period.
Explanation.--The fact that the appellant or the
applicant was misled by any order, practice or judgment
of the High Court in ascertaining or computing the
prescribed period may be sufficient cause within the
meaning of this section.
6. On perusal of record, this Court found that the Board of Directors
of the Steel Authority of India Limited in its 340 th Meeting held on
21st and 25th July, 2008 have levied the arbitrary charges and
increased the lease rent. Then on 13.12.2013 the respondents
issued a offer letter to the petitioner and the petitioner has
approached the Court by way of this writ petition on 01.08.2025,
i.e. after lapse of 17 years, therefore, it is crystal clear that the
petitioner was sleeping over his right.
7. Therefore, there is no good ground to entertain this petition.
8. Accordingly, the present writ petition stands dismissed.
Sd/-
(Arvind Kumar Verma)
JUDGE
Madhurima
