Madhya Pradesh High Court
Sarks Metal Private Limited ... vs Union Of India on 6 September, 2021
Author: Sujoy Paul
1 WP No.9526/2021
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
WP No.9526/2021
Sarks Metals Private Ltd. Vs. Union of India & Ors.
Indore, Dated:06.09.2021
Shri.A.K.Sethi, learned Sr.Counsel with Shri Manu
Maheshwari, learned counsel for petitioner.
Shri Milind Phadke, learned counsel for respondent No.1.
Shri Pushyamitra Bhargava, learned counsel for respondent
No.4.
Heard on the question of vacation of stay.
Shri Pushyamitra Bhargava, learned A.A.G submits that lease
granted to petitioner was cancelled by order dated 22/12/2018
(Annexure P/15) for breach of conditions of lease. The Unit of
petitioner was closed on 2/12/2019 (Annexure P/17). The petitioner
preferred an appeal and revision which were rejected by order dated
7/7/2020 (Annexure P/18) and 5/9/2020 (Annexure P/19). Thereafter
a notice dated 22/7/2020 was issued under the Bedakhali Adhiniyam
followed by the order of eviction dated 14/9/2020 (Annexure P/22).
Thereafter by eviction panchnama on 24/9/2020 the possession was
taken.
After considerable long time from the eviction, the writ petition
was filed on 17/5/2021. The respondents expecting such a writ
petition against aforesaid orders filed a caveat. However, the petition
was not filed within 90 days from the date of filing of caveat. It was
filed thereafter with a declaration in the petition that "recently no
caveat is received by the petitioner". The petitioner described that it
is a "division bench" matter. However, the ex-parte interim order was
passed by single bench on 24/5/2021 for the sole reason that the
division bench of main seat in WP No.8820/2021 protected litigant
from eviction and demolition proceedings. Lateron, on 27/7/2021, it
was brought to the notice of this Court that petitioner is challenging
the order passed under M.P. Lok Parisar (Bedakhali) Adhiniyam, 1974
(Annexure P/22). Since said subject is within the province of division
bench, the matter was directed to be placed before division bench.
Before division bench on 11/8/2021 an amendment application IA
No.4465/2021 was pressed to contend that relief relating to Bedakhali
Adhiniyam and order dated 14-15/9/2020 may be permitted to be
deleted. IA was allowed and accordingly relief relating to
"Bedakhali" stood deleted. Consequently, matter became a single
bench matter and again directed to be placed before single bench.
Shri Bhargava, learned A.A.G submits that in view of
withdrawing of relief relating to Bedhakhali, no challenge remains
against eviction. So far cancellation of lease is concerned, the
disputed questions cannot be gone into in a writ petition which is
evident from order of this Court in 2012 (1) MPLJ 53 (Sajni Bajaj
Vs. Indore Development Authority & Ors.) followed in WP
No.6900/2015 Mohammad Ramjan Vs. Managing Director &
another decided on 27/6/2019. By placing reliance on Article 226 (3)
of the Constitution and a full bench judgment of Gujarat High Court
reported in (2000) SCC Online Guj.115 (District Development
Officer Vs. Maniben Virabhai) Shri Bhargava urged that because of
deeming provision ingrained in Clause 3 of Article 226, the ad interim
order/stay stood vacated automatically.
Lastly, it is submitted that respondents have no objection if
petitioner remove his plant and machinery within a reasonable time
for example 30 days. He has no right to continue. The petition is
purposely filed after eight months so that previous caveat will loose
its efficacy.
Shri Sethi, learned Sr.Counsel assisted by Shri Manu
Maheshwari submits that Article 226(3) cannot be pressed into service
because after filing application for vacation of stay, matter was listed
before the bench on more than one occasion and bench has continued
the interim order.
The petitioner is not claiming any relief against eviction.
However, the amendment application which was allowed impleads
respondent No.6 in whose favour the lease is granted. The petitioner
undertakes to serve him within seven days. The matter may be heard
immediately thereafter finally. The judgment of Sajni Bajaj (supra) is
distinguishable.
I have heard the learned counsel for parties on this aspect for
sufficient length.
The order dated 24/5/2021 deserves to be modified because of
subsequent event of not pressing relief relating to "Bedakhali".
Accordingly, stay order dated 24/5/2021 is modified by withdrawing
the protection regarding eviction of the petitioner. So far demolition
is concerned, in the fitness of things and in the interest of justice, I
deem it proper to permit the petitioner to serve the respondent No.6
within seven working days from today and file affidavit of service.
The registry shall provide dasti notices to the petitioner on payment of
requisites within two days. The notices be made returnable on
30/9/2021. Affidavit of service be filed. The petitioner shall also file
amended copy of petition and annexures by supplying copy to the
other side. As noticed above, Shri Bhargava himself suggested that 30
days can be granted to the petitioner to remove his plant and
machinery. If within this time respondents can be served and matter
can be heard finally, no prejudice will be caused to the respondents.
Thus, I deem it proper to list this matter on 30 th of this month so that
aforesaid exercise may be over by that time. I.A. stands disposed off.
List on 30/09/2021.
(SUJOY PAUL)
Judge
vm
Digitally signed by
VARGHESE MATHEW
Date: 2021.09.07 15:20:11
-07'00'
