Madhya Pradesh High Court
Jyotinder Singh Saluja vs Bharat Heavy Electrical Ltd. on 26 March, 2025
Author: Vishal Dhagat
Bench: Vishal Dhagat
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:15446
1 WP-10592-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VISHAL DHAGAT
ON THE 26th OF MARCH, 2025
WRIT PETITION No. 10592 of 2025
JYOTINDER SINGH SALUJA
Versus
BHARAT HEAVY ELECTRICAL LTD. AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Shekhar Sharma - Senior Advocate with Shri Sanjay Kumar Patel
- Advocate for the petitioner .
Shri Ashok Lalwani - Senior Advocate with Shri Abhishek Singh -
Advocate for respondent Nos. 1 and 2.
ORDER
Petitioner has filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution
of India challenging order dated 21.07.2022 contained in Annexure-P/8.
2. By said order, it was informed to petitioner that lease granted to him
had expired on 31.03.2011 and petitioner had not made payment of bills and
rent of Rs.2,38,49,561/-. Due to said reason, license granted to petitioner
dated 28.08.2008 was cancelled and petitioner was directed to vacate the plot
within period of seven days, otherwise possession of plot will be taken under
the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971
(hereinafter referred to as "PP Act, 1971").
3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that
petitioner was granted lease of the plot measuring 12500 sqft. Lease of plot
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:15446
2 WP-10592-2025
was executed on 23.01.2009. After execution of lease, petitioner continued
to enjoy the open plot and to remain in possession of said plot even after
expiry of lease. Respondents also gave legitimacy to lease by not cancelling
the same and demanding lease at higher rates. They were repeatedly issuing
demand notice for payment of lease, therefore, it cannot be said that
petitioner was in unauthorized occupation. Respondents had recognized the
rights of petitioner to continue in possession. On 06.05.2022, demand was of
Rs.2,16,70,642/- and within period of two months said demand further rose
to Rs.2,38,49,561/-. Lease rent is being increased arbitrarily. Decision to
cancel the license of petitioner dated 21.07.2022 is arbitrary and malafide,
therefore, Court may intervene in this writ petition and quash order dated
21.07.2022.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents filed its
memorandum and appeared before this Court. No reply has been filed. He
borrowed the facts and grounds from paper book in MP No.5575/2024 which
relates to same issue i.e. eviction of petitioner under PP Act, 1971.
5. Learned counsel appearing for respondents submitted that after
passing of order dated 21.07.2022, proceedings were initiated for evicting
petitioner under PP Act, 1971. In said proceedings, order dated 15.06.2023
was passed and application for eviction was allowed. Said order was
challenged by petitioner in RCA No.66/2023 before District Judge. Appeal
was dismissed by District Judge and order dated 15.06.2023 was affirmed.
6. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents pointed out from
paper book that RCA No.66/2023 was dismissed vide judgment and decree
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:15446
3 WP-10592-2025
dated 18.09.2024. Said order is under challenged in MP No.5575/2024. No
stay has been granted in said miscellaneous petition. Order passed by District
Judge is operational. Demand of rent was held to be justified in proceedings
under the PP Act of 1971 and also in appeal by District Judge, therefore, no
case is made out. Petition may be dismissed.
7. Heard.
8. MP No.5574/2024 is filed to seek relief for quashment of order
passed by appellate authority in RCA No.66/2023. Said petition is arising out
of consequential proceedings due to passing of order dated 21.07.2022. Main
order ought to have been challenged in earlier petition which was filed by
petitioner in year 2024. Petitioner had not challenged order dated
21.07.2022. In Miscellaneous Petition challenge is made to order passed by
District Judge dismissing appeal against order dated 15.06.2023 where
eviction of petitioner was ordered. Only consequential order is under
challenge. Petitioner cannot be permitted to challenge series of orders which
is arising from the same cause of action in different petitions. Petitioner
ought to have challenged order dated 21.07.2022 in earlier petition. Further if
a person is entitled to more than one relief in respect of same cause of action
may sue for all or any of such reliefs, but if he omits without leave of the
Court to sue for all such reliefs he shall not afterward sue for any relief so
omitted. Petitioner has failed to challenge order dated 21.07.2022 in MP
No.5575/2024, therefore, petitioner cannot be permitted to challenge the said
order by filing separate writ petition before this Court. Further, license refers
to legal permission of authorization granted by an authority or an individual
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:15446
4 WP-10592-2025
to engage in specific activity, use of property and access to certain resources
under defined terms and condition. Petitioner was licensee and has signed the
lease agreement and if an order has been passed contrary to the terms and
conditions of license or lease agreement then petitioner has a remedy to
resort to civil suit. Demand raised by respondents is not held to be arbitrary
or malafide, therefore, validity of order cancelling license can be challenged
by filing a civil suit and specific relief can be granted under the Specific
Relief Act, 1963 for enforcement of civil rights.
9. In view of aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, writ
petition is dismissed.
(VISHAL DHAGAT)
JUDGE
$A
