Bishnu Charan Sutar vs Bhaskar Rout & Others

Arindam Sinha, J

Mr. Mishra, learned advocate appears on behalf of review applicant. He submits, his client is an industrial worker. Writ petitioner’s allotment in respect of quarter was cancelled and the quarter allotted to his client. His client paid arrears and outstandings.

Petitioner had objected to the cancellation. In the 2nd round of litigation, by order dated 3rd January, 2018 made by coordinate Bench in W.P.(C) no.3274 of 2005, the Tenement Committee was directed to reconsider the cancellation. The Tenement Committee reconsidered and again passed order of cancellation, which was challenged in this 3rd round of litigation (W.P.(C) no.35944 of 2021). In the writ petition his client was not made party. Hence, the review application for being heard.

Mr. Satapathy, learned advocate appears on behalf of writ petitioner and submits, by said order dated 3rd January, 2018 the matter was restored to the Tenement Committee. There was clear direction that only his client’s objection was to be considered. Review applicant made application (Misc. Case no.478 of 2018), which was dealt with by the coordinate Bench on order dated 29th January, 2018. Modification sought by applicant was rejected. Hence, his client did not make applicant party to the writ petition and rightly so.

Mr. Sharma, learned advocate, Additional Government Advocate appears on behalf of opposite party nos. 2 to 5.

That review applicant is interested in the allotment appears to be admitted position. By said order dated 3rd January, 2018, inter alia, following was said.

“The appellate authority having failed to appreciate all the above orders, its order vide Annexure-1 also must fail. Accordingly, this Court while setting aside the order at Annexures-2 and 1, remits the matter back to the Tenement Committee for fresh consideration, but however involving the petitioner and taking into consideration the objection of the petitioner.”

By subsequent said order dated 29th January, 2018, the coordinate Bench rejected of the misc case saying as follows.

“Heard learned counsel for the parties. This Court finds no reason to modify its order dated 3.1.2018 and accordingly, the Misc. Case stands rejected. However, considering the further request of the petitioner for timely disposal of the remand proceeding, this Court directs the competent authority to conclude the proceeding within a period of three months.”

Above extract from order dated 3rd January, 2018 appears to be direction for reconsideration by the Tenement Committee involving writ petitioner and taking into account his objection. The direction is fall out of impression obtained by the coordinate Bench that the Tenement Committee had acted at instance of review applicant. This was interpreted by review applicant to be that he would not be heard. That not being the intention of coordinate Bench, the misc case was rejected.

Both parties are interested in the quarter. Any decision regarding the same must be upon hearing them.

The review application is allowed. Order dated 25th November, 2021 is recalled and the writ petition restored. Above review applicant is added as party to the writ petition. Petitioner is given liberty to make the amendment in the cause title, in Court, to be counter signed by Court Master. Copy of amended cause title to be served on opposite parties.

List the writ petition on 28th February, 2022.

..………………