Jharkhand High Court
Gopal Prasad Sinha vs M/S Bharat Coking Coal Limited Through ... on 6 May, 2024
Author: Navneet Kumar
Bench: Navneet Kumar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
(Letters Patent Appellate Jurisdiction)
L.P.A. No. 89 of 2024
Gopal Prasad Sinha, aged about 59 years, Son of Late Kamla Prasad,
resident of Sijua near De-Nobili School, P.O. - Sijua, P.S.- Jogta, District-
Dhanbad, Jharkhand ... Appellant
Versus
1. M/s Bharat Coking Coal Limited through its Chairman-cum-Managing
Director, Koyla Bhawan, Koyla Nagar, P.O.-Koyla Nagar, P.S.- Saraidhela,
District-Dhanbad.
2. General Manager (Administration), M/s Bharat Coking Coal Limited,
Koyla Bhawan, Koyla Nagar, P.O.- Koyla Nagar, P.S.- Saraidhela, District -
Dhanbad.
3. Personnel Manager (Administration)/Incharge Bhuli Town Administration
Department, B.T.A. (Bhuli), P.O. & P.S.- Bhuli, District - Dhanbad.
4. Ex-Engineer (C), Bharat Coking Coal Limited, Office of the Town
Administration, P.O. & P.S. & District - Dhanbad.
5. Deputy General Manager (P) / HOD (Admn.), Koyla Bhawan, Koyla
Nagar, P.O.- Koyla Nagar, P.S.- Saraidhela, District- Dhanbad.
... Respondents
---------------
CORAM: HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVNEET KUMAR
For the Appellant : Mr. Ayush Aditya, Advocate
For the Respondents : Mr. Anoop Kumar Mehta, Advocate
Mr. Manish Kumar, Advocate
---------------
6th May 2024
Per, Shree Chandrashekhar, A.C.J.
The writ petitioner is aggrieved by the writ Court's order dated
13th October 2023 which affirms the order passed by the Deputy General
Manager (Personnel), HOD (Administration), BCCL declining his claim for
payment of Rs. 1,47,553.86 with Rs. 4,100/- and Rs. 1,000/- withheld as
additional security, with 12% interest.
2. The writ Court observed as under:
"9. On receiving definite allegation of misappropriation of coal, CBI
investigation was conducted and after investigation charge sheet was
submitted against the petitioners and others. The evidence was led both
oral and documentary regarding misappropriation of the amount on the
basis of which the petitioner was convicted for the said offence. The
acquittal has been passed by the Court by giving benefit of doubt.
10. Acquittal of the petitioner in appeal is by giving benefit of doubt. I
find much force in the submission advanced on behalf of the answering
respondents that this is a case where there are disputed questions of fact
regarding transportation of coal. Representation for release has been
rejected by Deputy General Manager (Personnel), HOD (Admn), BCCL
by order dated 24.08.2021 wherein it has been specifically stated that the
petitioners failed to produce any evidence that the claim of sum and other
amount were still due. No bill was raised for the due which is more than
25 years old. Even otherwise, the claim was more than 3 years old and
barred by law of limitation.
Under the circumstance, I do not find any merit in this writ
petition. This writ petition stands rejected."
3. The short point urged on behalf of the appellant is whether a
legally payable dues which were withheld on account of pendency of a
criminal case can be denied after the appellant is acquitted in the said
criminal case.
4. Had that been the case, the writ Court's decision cannot be
countenanced in law. However, the case set up by the appellant is not borne
of from the records of the case. The submission that Rs. 1,47,553.86 was
withheld on account of pendency of R.C. Case No. 14(A) of 1995(D) is
factually incorrect. The first foray of the petitioner before the writ Court in
C.W.J.C. No. 1880 of 1994 (R) ended with an observation by the Court that
the respondents may calculate the price of 302.840 MT of coal and adjust
the price against the admitted amount payable to him. In the proceeding of
C.W.J.C. No. 1880 of 1994 (R), the respondents set up a plea that the
payment in question was in respect of East Bassuria Colliery. In the letter
dated 1st June 1995, the Dy. C.F.M. (Fund) referred to the calculation and
sent a credit for Rs. 1,47,553.86 to Area No. VI (Kusunda). Before that, vide
letter dated 27th May 1994 the proprietary firm of the appellant, namely, M/s.
Gopal Engineering was communicated the decision of the management of
the BCCL that withholding of the running bills during pendency of the
inquiry was justified.
5. After a hiatus of quarter a century, the appellant moved the writ
Court in W.P(C) No. 115 of 2021 and then came back to challenge the order
dated 24th August 2021 by filing W.P.(C) No. 3807 of 2021. The submission
made at the bar, that the BCCL which admitted the pending dues of
Rs.1,47,553.86 cannot turn around and say that no legally payable dues is
pending, is without any substance. The aforementioned proceedings
recorded that this is the stand of the BCCL that Rs.1,47,553.86 is not
payable to the appellant on account of non-supply of coal. The judgment in
Criminal Appeal (SJ) No. 943 of 2015 which was delivered on 1st December
2020 has no bearing on the claim now raised by the appellant for the
payment of Rs.1,47,553.86. Rightly or wrongly, the view nurtured by the
appellant that the aforesaid amount has been withheld on account of
pendency of the criminal case shall not come in aid to him. The respondent-
authority rightly observed that even if there was a claim pending before the
BCCL the same has become time barred.
6. For the forgoing reasons, L.P.A. No. 89 of 2024 is dismissed.
(Shree Chandrashekhar, A.C.J.)
(Navneet Kumar, J.)
R.K./Nishant
