R K P UDYOG LIMITED Vs. METRO RAILWAY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This application is at the instance of the petitioner and is directed against the order dated September 12, 2003 passed by the Competent Authority under the Metro Railway (Construction of Works) Act, 1978 in the Claim Case No.1 of 1998 thereby rejecting the application dated July 7, 2003 on contest.

(2.) The short fact is that the petitioner filed the claim case no.1 of 1998 before the Competent Authority under the Metro Railway (Construction of Works) Act, 1978 praying for determination of the amount payable to the petitioner on account of loss and damage caused to the properties of the petitioner during construction of the metro railway. The claim case was at the stage of recording evidence. At the time of filing of that claim case, there was some delay, that is, why the petitioner filed an application for condonation of the delay. In order to dispose of that application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, one P.W. was examined on behalf of the metro railway and thereafter one witness, namely, Rajesh Poddar, was being examined on behalf of the petitioner. He was one of the Directors of the petitioner company. While his deposition was being recorded, it was noticed that whenever the witness wanted to make any statement, the presiding officer, that is, the Competent Authority, suo motu, was asking several questions to that witness.

(3.) In this way, the examination of that witness was going on. When the witness was being examined, his statement was being taken by the stenographer in his dictation note. It was not being typed at that time. But it was being typed subsequently. When the deposition sheet was tendered to the witness subsequently for his signature, it was found that his statement had been altered. It was also stated by him that he did not make certain statements but those were recorded therein. The statements were recorded in such a fashion that the statement might help the opposite party, that is, the metro railway. Even certain questions put to the witness by the Competent Authority were also altered and the answers were recorded in such a fashion as if they helped the Competent Authority though the witness did not state such statement at all.