9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (10) TMI 1425X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... referred to as "KUDA") and has quashed and set aside the judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No. 26642 of 2007, the original writ Petitioner - Modified Voluntary Retirement Scheme of 2002 of Azam Jahi Mill Workers Association (hereinafter referred to as "Workers Association") has preferred the present Appeals. 2. The facts leading to the present Appeals in nut-shell are as under: 2.1 That, all the members of the original writ Petitioner - Workers Association were working in Azam Jahi Mills owned and run by the NTC. All the workers worked in the said Mill for more than 20 years. The said Mill was closed in the year 2002. That, about 452 employees worked in the Mill for more than 20 years. It appears that during the period of service, all the workers/employees working in the Mill were allotted Employees' Quarters constructed and owned by the Mill. That, all the employees including the members of the Workers Association and other employees of the Mill took voluntary retirement pursuant to a Modified Voluntary Scheme of 2002. At this stage it is to be noted that a large number of employees voluntarily retired on one day i.e. 31.08.2002. That, a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on/s to allot to them also 200 Sq. Yards plot as allotted to other 134 workers out of the remaining land admeasuring Acres 10.24 Gunthas. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Warangal directed the Tehsildar, Warangal to inquire about the land to an extent of Acres 10.24 Gunthas situated at Laxmipura and Khila, Warangal. VRO of Laxmipura, Warangal submitted the report to the Tehsildar submitting that the land to extent of Acres 5 situated at Laxmipura village and the land to an extent of Acres 5.24 Gunthas situated at village Khila, Warangal total admeasuring Acres 10.24 Gunthas is in vacant possession and therefore, the said land is able to allocate house plots to members of Workers Association, who have been 318 employees, have not been allotted the house plots. Thereafter, nothing further was done to allot 200 Sq. Yards of developed plots each free of cost to the remaining 318 ex-employees/workers of the Mill who also took voluntary retirement along with other 134 workers who were allotted 200 Sq. Yards of developed plots each free of cost and therefore, the Workers Association filed the Writ Petition before the High Court being Writ Petition No. 26642 of 2007. That, by a detailed and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ary retirement and the remaining 318 workmen who also took the voluntary retirement along with other 134 workmen who were allotted 200 Sq. Yards plots free of cost. 4.2 It is submitted that in fact 318 workmen were compelled and/or forced to vacate the quarters pursuant to the notice dated 17.07.1986. It is submitted that however despite the notice dated 17.07.1986, 134 workmen/employees did not vacate the quarters. It is submitted that assuming that 318 remaining workmen vacated the quarters out of their own volition pursuant to the notice dated 17.07.1986, merely because other 134 workmen, who did not vacate the quarters despite the service of notice dated 17.07.1986, cannot be said to be at a higher pedestal than the law abiding workmen who vacated the quarters pursuant to the notice dated 17.07.1986. It is submitted that therefore as such the equals are treated unequally and therefore, the learned Single Judge rightly directed the original Respondents - Respondents herein to allot 200 Sq. Yards plots to remaining 318 workmen also. 4.3 It is further submitted that if 318 workmen would not have vacated the quarters, in that case, they would have also been allotted 200 Sq. Yards ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bution of State largesse. Reliance is placed on the decisions of this Court in the case of Ramana Dayaram Shetty v. International Airport Authority of India, (1979) 3 SCC 489 (Paras 11 and 12) and in the case of D.S. Nakara v. Union of India, (1983) 1 SCC 305 (Paras 36 and 42). 4.10 It is submitted that even 134 workers were allotted the plots without having any legal right and without having any legal relationship or privity of contract with the KUDA and the State. It is submitted that therefore the benefit which was granted to other 134 workers cannot be denied to remaining 318 workmen on the ground that there is/was no legal relationship or privity of contract with KUDA and the State Government. It is submitted that as such the right to equality guaranteed Under Article 14 of the Constitution of India is a right available to the remaining 318 workers which as such is enforceable. Making the above submissions, it is prayed to allow the present Appeals. 5. The present Appeals are vehemently opposed by Mr. V. Giri, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the KUDA. 5.1 It is vehemently submitted on behalf of the KUDA that as such as rightly observed by the Division Bench, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r the KUDA to develop the land acquired and therefore, it was under the said compulsion that a conscious decision was taken to allot 200 Sq. Yards of plots free of cost to those 134 ex-employees who continued to be in occupation and possession of the quarters. It is submitted that therefore in absence of any vested right in favour of 318 ex-employees, no writ of mandamus could have been issued by the learned Single Judge and therefore, the Division Bench has rightly interfered with the order passed by the learned Single Judge. 5.5 It is further submitted by Mr. V. Giri, learned Senior Advocate that if any relief the remaining 318 ex-employees are entitled to, the same can be only from the NTC and the Mill and/or out of the remaining land admeasuring 11 Acres owned by the NTC. It is submitted that however there shall not be any liability of the KUDA to allot any plot free of cost to the ex-employees from the land allotted to/purchased by the KUDA. 5.6 Mr. V. Giri, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 has vehemently submitted that as such the writ petition preferred by the Appellant - Workers Association before the High Court itself was not mai ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... unauthorized occupation of the land or 318 members of the Workers Association could enforce any legal right against the said land. It is submitted that no covenant or obligation ran with the land at any point of time. It is submitted that in fact as per the Sick Textile Undertakings (Nationalization) Act, 1974, the vesting of the land in the Central Government is free from any trust/obligation/mortgage/charge/lien and all other encumbrances affecting it. It is submitted that therefore the two vital conditions requisite for a constitutional Court to issue a writ of mandamus viz. a legal right with the person who approaches the Court and a legal duty/obligation imposed on the person against whom the relief is sought, are both absent in the instant case. 5.8 It is further submitted that even the intelligible differentia can be explained by way of an affidavit before this Court. It is submitted that the Constitution Bench of this Court in the case of Shri Ram Krishna Dalmia v. Shri Justice S.R. Tendolkar and Ors., 1959 SCR 279 rejected the contention that affidavits cannot be looked into and differentia should be forthcoming from the Notification only. It is submitted that the G.O. No ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... te unhampered possession of the remaining extent of land at the earliest. 5.11 It is submitted that assuming that the allotment under the G.O. No. 463 was wrong and was a mistake, the same cannot be offered a basis for legally enforceable claim at the instance of the Appellant Association. It is submitted that as held by this Court in the case of the State of Odisha v. Anup Kumar Senapati, (2019) 19 SCC 626, two wrongs do not make a right and there is no concept of negative equality contained in Article 14 of the Constitution. Making the above submissions, it is prayed to dismiss the present Appeals 6. The present Appeals are also opposed by Ms. Aishwarya Bhati, learned ASG appearing on behalf of the NTC as well as the Union of India. It is submitted by Ms. Bhati that as such in the process of implementation of Revival Scheme approved by BIFR, the entire land admeasuring Acres 201.02 Cents belonging to the Mill was put to sale by the Asset Sale Committee constituted by the Government of India and on 23.01.2004, the sale was approved. It is submitted that accordingly land admeasuring Acres 65.69 Cents was sold to Andhra Pradesh Housing Board and Acres 135.33 Cents to KUDA. It is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on and after the ex-employees of the Mills took voluntary retirement and after the Mill came to be closed after obtaining appropriate closure order from the Ministry, thereafter there is no relationship continued between the employees/ex-employees and the NTC/Central Government/Mills. It is submitted that therefore the Appellants are not entitled to any relief against the Central Government/NTC/Mills. 6.4 It is further submitted that the allotment of plots free of cost was never the part of Modified Voluntary Retirement Scheme of 2002. It is submitted that all the erstwhile employees who opted for voluntary retirement under the Modified Voluntary Retirement Scheme of 2002 were completely aware of the benefits that would be offered by way of golden handshake, which did not include allotment of plots free of cost. 6.5 It is further submitted that as 200 Sq. Yards plots came to be allotted to 134 ex-employees to avoid the cost of litigation, there is no question of violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India as alleged. It is submitted that in any case the Central Government/NTC/Mills had nothing to do with the decision taken by the KUDA. It is submitted that therefore the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... urt quashed and set aside the judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge. Hence, the present Appeals. 8. Having heard learned Counsel appearing for the respective parties, the short question which is posed for consideration of this Court is, whether the remaining 318 ex-employees of the Respondent No. 4 Mills (erstwhile) can claim the parity and equality vis-à-vis other similarly situated 134 ex-employees of the Respondent No. 4 Mills (erstwhile) and can claim 200 Sq. Yards of plots free of cost? The incidental questions which are posed for consideration of this Court as argued and suggested by the learned Counsel for the respective parties would be as follows: (1) Whether the writ petition preferred by the Appellant Association before the High Court Under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the relief sought was maintainable? (2) Whether was there any legal right available to the Appellant Association for the relief sought in the writ petition i.e. for allotment of 200 Sq. Yards plots of land? (3) Does Article 14 of the Constitution have any application in the present case? (4) Whether to determine the intelligible differentia the affidavit file ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the request to allot the quarters is under consideration by the management. That, after the closure permission, proceedings were initiated by KUDA to acquire the land of Respondent No. 4 Mills to an extent of 135.33 Acres. However, it appears that the Vice Chairman of KUDA vide letter/communication dated 28.12.2006 submitted their proposal to permit KUDA to allot 200 Sq. Yards of plots free of cost to 134 ex-employees of erstwhile Respondent No. 4 Mills. In the letter it was specifically mentioned that to avoid undue hardship to the ex-employees and as a welfare measure a proposal was made by the Vice Chairman of KUDA to permit KUDA to allot 200 Sq. Yards of developed plots free of cost to 134 employees of the erstwhile Respondent No. 4 Mills. Vide G.O. No. 463 dated 27.06.2007, the State Government accepted the said proposal and granted the permission to allot 200 Sq. Yards of developed plots free of cost to each of 134 employees of erstwhile Respondent No. 4 Mills. Nothing further was mentioned either in the communication/letter dated 28.12.2006 nor in the G.O. No. 463 dated 27.06.2007 that to avoid any litigation and/or litigation cost as now stated in the affidavit in reply it ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e find no justification at all in treating 318 ex-employees different from those 134 ex-employees who were allotted 200 Sq. Yards of plots free of cost. We find that as such the equals are treated unequally and therefore, when the equals are treated unequally, there is a violation of Article 14 of the Constitution and therefore, the Appellants were entitled to the relief sought even in exercise of powers Under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 9.3. The concept of equality before the law and equal protection of the laws emerges from the fundamental right expressed in Article 14 of the Constitution. Equality is a definite concept. The concept of equality has an inherent limitation arising from the very nature of the constitutional guarantee. Those who are similarly circumstanced are entitled to an equal treatment. Equality is amongst equals. Classification is therefore to be founded on substantial differences which distinguish persons grouped together from those left out of the groups and such differential attributes must bear in just and rational relation to the object sought to be achieved. In a given case Article 14 of the Constitution may permit a valid classification. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the proposal of the Vice Chairman, KUDA and permit them to allot 200 Sq. Yards of developed plots free of cost to each 134 ex-employees of the erstwhile Respondent No. 4 Mills. Therefore, the allotment of 200 Sq. Yards of plots free of cost to 134 ex-employees was as a rehabilitation and welfare measure of ex-employees of the erstwhile Respondent No. 4 Mills. Even before the learned Single Judge also, it was not the case pleaded before the High Court that those 134 persons were allotted 200 Sq. Yards of plots free of cost to avoid any litigation and/or litigation cost which is now pleaded for the first time before this Court. The case on behalf of the Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 has been dealt with by the learned Single Judge in paragraph 5 which reads as under: 5. The averments in the counter affidavit of the 3rd Respondent to the extent relevant, in brief, are as follows: The President of the Petitioner association in his personal capacity along with four others had filed a court case before the District Legal Services Authority, Warangal and it is posted to 03.03.2008 for hearing. Hence, the writ petition is not maintainable. The members of the Petitioner association had volunta ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and had incurred a lot of expenditure on infrastructure facilities like provision of roads, water supply, drainage, electricity, parks development etc. and disposing the plots in public open auction. In view of the financial position of the third Respondent, it is not possible to allot plots to any other retired employees, under any circumstances. The members of the Petitioner association vacated the quarters long time back and are residing elsewhere and they were not staying in the mill quarters at the time of the proposal of the scheme for purchase of land by this Respondent from the 1st Respondent and therefore, the members of the Petitioner association are not eligible for allotment of any house sites on par with the other (134) workers. The project was taken up on "as is where is" and "as is what is" basis. The members of the Petitioner association have no right to demand plots and this Respondent has no liability to allot plots to the members of the Petitioner association as per the project deal. The members of the Petitioner association cannot re-enter the picture and seek allotment of house sites. As per the Government Order, the Project has to be finalized to raise funds ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is observed and held that there can be no objection to the matters brought to the notice of the Court by way of affidavit being taken into consideration alongwith the matters specified in the notification in order to ascertain whether there was any valid basis for treating the Appellants and/or their companies as a class by themselves. We fail to appreciate as to how the said decision shall be applicable to the facts of the case on hand. 9.6. Now, so far as the submission on behalf of the Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 relying upon the decision of this Court in the case of Anup Kumar Senapati (Supra) that there is no concept of negative equality Under Article 14 of the Constitution and the submission that merely because there was any mistake on the part of the Respondents in allotting 200 Sq. Yards of land to the said 138 persons and therefore, the Appellants cannot claim the parity is concerned, again the same has no substance. At the outset it is required to be noted that it was/is never the case on behalf of the Respondents that those 134 persons were allotted the plots by mistake and/or there was any wrong committed in allotting 200 Sq. Yards of plot to the said 134 persons. Therefo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... imilarly situated. It will be open for the Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 to approach the Respondent No. 1 and/or the State Government for allotment of additional land and/or to allot the plots from the remaining land of the Respondent No. 4 Mills which might be vacant and available with the Central Government/NTC as the case may be. 10. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, both these Appeals succeed. Impugned judgment and order dated 19.02.2020 passed by the High Court for the State of Telangana, at Hyderabad in Writ Appeal Nos. 427 of 2016 and 431 of 2016 are hereby quashed and set aside and the judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No. 26642 of 2007 is hereby restored and the Respondents more particularly Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 are hereby directed to treat and consider the remaining 318 ex-employees of the erstwhile Respondent No. 4 - Azam Jahi Mills at par with other 134 ex-employees who were allotted 200 Sq. Yards of plots free of cost as per the Government Order No. 463 dated 27.06.2007. However, it is observed that it will be open for KUDA to approach the State Government and/or the Respondent Nos. 1 and 4/the Central Government ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
