SANTI BHUSAN BOSE Vs. UNION OF INDIA (UOI)

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Revisional application is directed against the judgment and order passed by the Competent Authority of the Metro Railway in Claim Case No. 2 of 1985. The Petitioners are the lessees of premises No. 102, Shyama Prasad Mukherjee Road and are also the owners of a Cinema known as 'Basusree'. The Respondent No. 2, the Metro Railways Administration proceeded with the construction of underground Railway system underneath the stretch of a portion of street in front of 'Basusree Cinema'. It is alleged that due to careless and negligent act of construction by the Respondent/opposite parly No. 2, the Petitioners suffered damages in their cinema -buildings where cracks on the walls, floors and stairs were caused and the foundation was made to sink, the mural paintings inside the auditorium were also damaged. Accordingly, the Petitioners made a claim of Rs. 2,21,000 before the opposite party No. 2 by filing a written application. In the said Claim Case, in the presence of the opposite party No. 2 on the prayer of both the parties, i.e. the Petitioners and the opposite party, a joint inspection was ordered by the Competent Authority. On submission of the report of the joint inspection before the Competent Authority, the Petitioners inspected the same. They were allowed to file revised estimates of the damages by the Competent Authority. The opposite party/Respondent No. 2 filed a written objection to such estimates. The Petitioners filed an application before the Competent Authority for amendment of their petition of claim in terms of the revised estimates. The Competent Authority, however, by order No. 5 dated March 14, 1990, rejected the application for amendment of the claim petition. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the judgment and order of the Competent Authority, the Petitioners have moved in Revision.

(2.) Mr. Tarun Chatterjee, the learned Counsel being duly assisted by Mr. N. Chatterjee representing the Petitioners, has submitted that the judgment and order of the Competent Authority cannot be sustained in fact and in law. Mr. Ashim Kr. Ghosh and Mr. Prabhat Kr. Mukherjee representing the opposite party Nos. 1 and 2 respectively on the other hand contend that under the scheme of Metro Railways (Construction of Works) Act, 1978, the Competent Authority is not empowered to effect the amendment of the claim petition. It has further been urged that the jurisdiction of the Competent Authority is purely discretionary and no Revision would lie against the order by which he refused to exercise discretion in favour of the Petitioners.

(3.) Mr. Chatterjee has drawn our attention to Sec. 15 of the Metro Railways (Construction of Works) Act, 1978 (shortly to be called the Act hereinafter). It says that the Competent Authority shall have, for the purposes of this Act, all the powers of a civil Court while trying a suit under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. Some items, for example, have been listed as (a) to (e), These items are for summoning and enforcing the attendance, examination of witness, requiring the discovery and production of documents, reception of evidence on affidavits, requisitioning any public record etc. and issuing commission for examination of witnesses. In our view, these items are set out by of example. The power of the Competent Authority is not confined to these Items only. The Sec. clearly says that the Competent Authority shall have all the powers of the civil Court while trying a suit under the Code of Civil Procedure.