RIDH KARAN REKECHA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal arises out of a judgment and order dated 20th of June, 2003 passed by the learned Single Judge in WP No. 15211(W) of 2001. In connection with the said appeal, an application for stay was filed. The appeal has since been assigned before us. The introduction:

(2.) Mr. P.C. Sen, Senior Counsel, appearing on behalf of the appellant/writ petitioner, insisted upon grant of an ad-interim order since opposed by Mr. Jayanta Mitter, Senior Counsel for the respondent No. 5, Mr. P.K. Roy, Senior Counsel for respondent Nos. 4 and 6, and Mr. Sridhar Panja and Mr. Subir Pal appearing for the State and for the Union of India respectively. In the order dated 30th June, 2003, we had occasion to find that virtually we are to deal with the merit of the writ petition while deciding the question of grant of ad interim order. At this stage, all the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respective parties insisted that the writ petition should also be heard along with the appeal in order to shorten the litigation in the exigency of the situation. Having regard to facts and circumstances of the case, by consent of the respective parties, the records of the writ petition was also called for and was decided to be heard along with the appeal by or under the said order dated 30'h June, 2003. On 21st of November, 2003, an ad interim order was issued with certain conditions in view of the situation then prevailing. Ultimately, the matter was argued by the respective Counsel for days together. Each of the Counsel had taken considerable period of time for placing their respective cases and had argued the case in threadbare. We shall deal with the respective cases at appropriate stage. As desired by the parties, we took up a consolidated hearing of the appeal and the writ petition. In our view, the decision in the writ petition and the appeal would intimately dispose of the matter altogether and would shorten the litigation as proposed by the respective parties. We, therefore, hereby propose to dispose of both the appeal and the writ petition together as hereafter. The scope:

(3.) Before we proceed further, we may indicate the brief outline of the facts, necessary fur the purpose of determining the question at issue. We may also indicate that the Official Liquidator and the Commissioner of Provident Fund had also attempted to intervene. We need not go into those questions. The disputes involved in this case are between the appellant/writ petitioner and the National Highway Authority/Competent Authority vis-a-vis the State of West Bengal and the Union of India. Whereas the Official Liquidator and the Commissioner of Provident Fund are claiming interest in the compensation payable on account of the acquisition or the property over which the disputes between the appellants and the respondents are revolving. Both these authorities have ways and means to lay its respective claim over the amount receivable by the appellant/writ petitioner on account of the acquisition of the land or otherwise. It would really complicate the issues and we would be required to enter into matters, which are completely foreign to the issues involved. We, therefore, leave these questions open and do not propose to enter into those disputes. The Official Liquidator or the Commissioner of Provident Fund, if they have any claim or interest, they may proceed in accordance with law as they may be advised. The decision in this appeal or the writ petition has nothing to do with their claim or interest. There are adequate provisions in the respective law, namely, the Companies Act and the Employees' Provident Fund Act for realization of the respective dues of the respective authorities to which the respective authorities may resort to. The facts: