MIRA TIBREWAL Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is undisputedly an owner of a premises which has been in occupation of the Minor Irrigation Department of Government of Bihar and in which the Office of the Sub-Divisional Officer, Minor Irrigation Department, Sub-Division-Jhanjharpur is located. THE said premises was taken on rent sometime in the year, 1980 on a monthly rental of Rs. 125/-. It is not in dispute that thereafter the rent was enhanced from March, 1989 to Rs 800/- per month by the orders of the Rent Controller-cum-Sub-Divisional Officer, Jhanjharpur. THE same remained unaltered for, 15 years without any enhancement. Petitioner, accordingly, requested the Minor Irrigation Department for enhancement of rent. First, the Department reverted stating that toilet and bathroom facilities should be provided to consider the same. THE . same was, admittedly, provided by the landlady. THEreafter, the matter was again referred by the Department itself to the Sub-Divisional Officer-cum-Rent Controller, Jhanjharpur to get the rent fixed as it was a matter of occupation by Government of private premises. THE Sub-Divisional Officer, after making enquiries and after considering the matter, by his communication dated 17.1.2003 addressed to the Assistant Engineer of the said Department at Jhanjharpur, directed that the rent for the premises would be Rs. 2,000/- with effect from 7.12.1995. This order of the Sub-Divisional Officer, Jhanjharpur was accepted by the Department. Correspondences have started as would be evident from Annexure-11, the letter of the Assistant Engineer to the Executive Engineer dated 4.6.2007 wherein several important issues have been fairly admitted. It is first admitted that petitioner, pursuant to her request for enhancement of rent, had agreed to and has already provided water and toilet facilities which were not there earlier. It was then fairly admitted that against the order of the Sub-Divisional Officer fixing rent of Rs. 2,000/- with effect from 7.12.1995, the Department did not prefer any appeal for the reason that at Jhanjharpur, there was no possibility of having a private premises for a rent less than Rs. 2,000/- as fixed and further that there was no Government premises available. Under these circumstances, requests were made to sanction funds for payment of rent and arrears of rent accordingly. THE Department then, on being satisfied and having agreed to enhance the rent with effect from 7.12.1995 to Rs. 2,000/-from Rs. 800/-, sent the proposal to the Finance Department. THE Finance Department did not object in any manner to the said proposal which is obviously in view of the facts as noted above but required the Department to give a certificate that Government premises was not available. That certificate also has since been filed. THE matter is now pending with the Finance Department for sanction and releasing of funds. From 1995, we are already in 2009 and what is most curious is that upto January 2004, the Department was paying rent at Rs. 800/- per month but after the order of the Sub-Divisional Officer-cum-Rent Controller enhancing the rent even that meagre amount of Rs. 800/- is not being paid. THE result is that the petitioner has not only been deprived of rent as enhanced, she has been deprived of the basic rent which was fixed over 25 years back. THE only explanation for the delay and non-payment is lack of budgetary sanction and release of funds for the said payment. THEse basic facts are not in dispute as per the counter affidavit. Learned counsel for the State submits that the petitioner in fact is seeking enforcement of an order of the Rent Controller and writ would not be the proper remedy. I regret my inability to accept the said submission. What is being challenged is the arbitrary action of the Government in not paying the petitioner what is legally and fairly payable. It is not in dispute that State has not disputed rather explicitly accepted the enhancement order. Having accepted it, it does not lie in the mouth of State to say that in spite of our arbitrary action in delaying implementation of our commitment, a party cannot move for a direction to this Court for expediting payment which is not in dispute. A Government which professes to be governed by principles of welfare Government cannot deny legitimate rights. In this regard, I can only refer to what the Apex Court said in the case of M/s Hindustan Sugar Mills vs. THE State of Rajasthan and Others, AIR 1981 Supreme Court 1681: "........we hope and trust that the Central Government will honour its legal obligation and not drive the appellant to file a suit for recovery of the amount of such sales tax. We hopefully expect that the Central Government will not try to shirk its legal obligation by resorting to any legal technicalities, for we maintain that in a democratic society governed by the rule of law, it is the duty of the State to do what is fair and just to the citizen and the State should not seek to defeat the legitimate claim of the citizen by adopting a legalistic attitude but should do what fairness and justice demand..........."

(2.) IN that case, a dispute had arisen whether on certain sales of sugar, sales tax was payable or not. The dispute was in between the State Sales Tax Department and the Sugar Company. The Apex Court held that sales tax was payable on the freight component. Sugar was sold pursuant to contract entered into between the Sugar Company and the Central Government. The parties then moved the Apex Court for a direction to the Central Government to pay the said amount due under the contract. It is in that respect that the Apex Court has held, as above.

(3.) WITH these observations and directions, the writ petition stands disposed of.