R.C. Sachan S/O Shankar Lal Vs. Managing Director, Central Ware Housing Corporation and ors. - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
- madhya pradesh municipal corporation act (23 of 1956)section 91 & m.p. municipal corporation act (1956), section 307(5): [a.k. patnaik, c.j., a.m. sapre & s.k.seth, jj] public nuisance - suit for injunction - held, section 91(i) of the c.p.c. is not exhaustive of the remedies that are available to a party even in case of a public nuisance or other wrongful act affecting or likely to affect the public. the remedy of the corporation and any other person under sub-section (5) of section 307 of the act of 1956 is independent of the provisions of section 91 of the c.p.c. and not only the corporation but any other person can apply to the district court for injunction or removal or alteration of a building on the ground that the provisions of the act of 1956 or the bye-laws made thereunder have been contravened. sections 41(j) & 4 & m.p. municipal corporation act (1956), section 307(5): [a.k. patnaik, c.j., a.m. sapre & s.k. seth, jj] relief of injunction held, the reliefs under the specific relief act, 1963 are granted for the purpose of enforcing individual civil rights as will be clear from section 4 of the specific relief act. 1963. accordingly, injunction under part iii of the specific relief act, 1963 is granted to the plaintiff either to prevent a breach of an obligation in favour of the plaintiff, or to compel the performance of an obligation in his favour. unless, therefore, there is an obligation in favour of the plaintiff which needs to be enforced, the court cannot grant injunction. hence, it is provided in section 41(j) of the specific relief act. 1963 that an injunction cannot be granted when the plaintiff has no personal interest in the matter. the provisions of the specific relief act, 1963 do not apply to the right conferred on the corporation and any other person under sub-section (5) of section 307 of m.p. municipal corporation act, 1956. under the provisions of the act of 1956, every building must comply with the provisions of the act of 1956 and the byelaws made thereunder and hence if there is any breach of the provisions of the act of 1956 or the bye-laws made thereunder, sub-section (5) of section 307 of the act of 1956 confers a right not only on the corporation but also any other person to apply to the district court for an injunction for removal or alteration of a building on the ground that there has been the contravention of the provisions of the act of 1956 or the bye-laws made thereunder. this remedy under sub-section (5) of section 307 of the act of 1956 is independent of and different from the remedies under the specific relief act. 1963. section 307(5): [a.k. patnaik, c.j., a.m. sapre & s.k. seth,jj] injunction for removal or alternation of any building-locus standi to claim - held, the word any which has diverse meanings, therefore, has to be interpreted depending on the context and the subject matter of statute in which it is used. there are various other provisions in the act of 1956 and the byelaws made thereunder relating to buildings within the area of the corporation which have to be complied with. legislature has., therefore, to provide for some remedy if the provisions of the act of 1956 or the byelaws thereunder in respect of a building are violated. it is only for this reason that under sub-section (5) of section 307 of the act of 1956, a right has been conferred not only on the corporation but on any other person to apply to the district court for injunction for removal of a building or alteration of any building on the ground that it contravenes any provisions of the act or the byelaws made thereunder. hence, not only the corporation but every other person has been given the right to apply to the district court for injunction for the removal or alteration of any building on the ground that it contravenes any provisions of the act or the byelaws made thereunder. the context and the subject-matter of the statute in which the word any has been used is thus, wide enough to include all persons other than the corporation or every other person other than the corporation or any other person other than the corporation. - the remaining reports are good. another junior shri mahesh had all good report. his one report has been categorised very good. v prasad had all good report except one.ordert.s. doabia, j.1. this petition arises out of following facts :-the petitioner was working as sectional officer. he sought promotion to the post of assistant engineer. the departmental promotion committee held its proceeding on 29th of may 1994. this committee found the petitioner not fit for promotion. his juniors were promoted. the petitioner preferred a representation. this was rejected by an order annexure p-9. a further representation was filed. this was rejected vide order annexure p-11.2. in the representation annexure p-10 the petitioner had submitted that adverse reports were not communicated to him. with a view to meet this reasoning the authority deciding the representation observed that even if one adverse entry for the year 1982, is ignored even then, the petitioner would not be eligible for the promotion. by making above observation, the representation was rejected. it is against the rejection of the representation and earlier non promotion, the present petition has been preferred.3. the respondents were fair enough to place on record the minutes of the proceedings of the departmental promotion committee. this is annexure r. 1. a perusal of the proceeding brings out that the petitioner had two adverse reports. the remaining reports are good. his junior d. p. singh had one adverse report. another junior shri mahesh had all good report. his one report has been categorised very good. one a. v prasad had all good report except one.4. if one adverse report of the petitioner is ignored then his case is not different from o. p. sharma and a. v. prasad. apart from this, the question as to whether the petitioner could or could not be promoted in absence of one adverse report is a matter, which could be decided by the departmental promotion committee only. this committee comprised of 5 members. the opinion of deputy manager who decided the representation is that even if one adverse report is there the things would not improve. this cannot be said to be the opinion of departmental promotion committee. thus looking from any point of view the non promotion of the petitioner and consideration by the departmental promotion committee cannot be said to be a proper and just consideration. persons having similar record have been promoted.5. thus if one adverse report of the year 1982 is to be ignored then, the petitioner is at par with others. accordingly a direction is given to the respondents to consider the matter afresh and pass appropriate order. the petitioner also submitted that the adverse report of 1982 was not communicated to him. this aspect of the matter be also taken note of.6. let a decision be taken and a fresh exercise be taken within a period of 4 months. the period of 4 months would begin when the copy of the order passed by this court along with writ petition and annexures are made available to the respondents.7. disposed of accordingly. security if deposited, be refunded to the petitioner.

Judgment:
ORDER

T.S. Doabia, J.

1. This petition arises out of following facts :-

The petitioner was working as sectional officer. He sought promotion to the post of Assistant Engineer. The Departmental Promotion Committee held its proceeding on 29th of May 1994. This committee found the petitioner not fit for promotion. His juniors were promoted. The petitioner preferred a representation. This was rejected by an order Annexure P-9. A further representation was filed. This was rejected vide order Annexure P-11.

2. In the representation annexure P-10 the petitioner had submitted that adverse reports were not communicated to him. With a view to meet this reasoning the authority deciding the representation observed that even if one adverse entry for the year 1982, is ignored even then, the petitioner would not be eligible for the promotion. By making above observation, the representation was rejected. It is against the rejection of the representation and earlier non promotion, the present petition has been preferred.

3. The respondents were fair enough to place on record the minutes of the proceedings of the Departmental Promotion Committee. This is Annexure R. 1. A perusal of the proceeding brings out that the petitioner had two adverse reports. The remaining reports are good. His junior D. P. Singh had one adverse report. Another junior Shri Mahesh had all good report. His one report has been categorised very good. One A. V Prasad had all good report except one.

4. If one adverse report of the petitioner is ignored then his case is not different from O. P. Sharma and A. V. Prasad. Apart from this, the question as to whether the petitioner could or could not be promoted in absence of one adverse report is a matter, which could be decided by the Departmental Promotion Committee only. This committee comprised of 5 members. The opinion of Deputy Manager who decided the representation is that even if one adverse report is there the things would not improve. This cannot be said to be the opinion of Departmental Promotion Committee. Thus looking from any point of view the non promotion of the petitioner and consideration by the Departmental Promotion Committee cannot be said to be a proper and just consideration. Persons having similar record have been promoted.

5. Thus if one adverse report of the year 1982 is to be ignored then, the petitioner is at par with others. Accordingly a direction is given to the Respondents to consider the matter afresh and pass appropriate order. The petitioner also submitted that the adverse report of 1982 was not communicated to him. This aspect of the matter be also taken note of.

6. Let a decision be taken and a fresh exercise be taken within a period of 4 months. The period of 4 months would begin when the copy of the order passed by this court along with writ petition and Annexures are made available to the respondents.

7. Disposed of accordingly. Security if deposited, be refunded to the petitioner.