AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Challenge in all these appeals are made under Clause X of
the Letters Patent to common order passed in various writ petitions on
01.10.2015 including three writ petitions filed by the appellant herein
M/s Vishnu Sagar Mills Ltd. i.e. CWJC Nos.4625 of 2009, 4626 of
2009 and 4747 of 2009, by which a prayer made for quashing the
certificate proceedings initiated against the petitioner under the Bihar
Public Demand Recovery Act, 1914 and the Bihar Sugarcane
(Regulation of Supply and Purchase) Act, 1981, has been rejected.
During the course of hearing of these appeals, it
transpires that between the appellant-assessee and the State
Government with regard to similar certificates issued for various years
on earlier occasion, a writ petition filed being CWJC No.13121 of
2006 has been decided in favour of the appellant-assessee on
02.05.2014 and it is case of the appellant-assessee herein that once the
lis with regard to same issue stands decided between the petitioner and
the respondent-State Government vide order passed on 02.05.2014 in
CWJC No.13121 of 2006, the said judgment operates as constructive
res judicata and as the learned Writ Court has not taken note of this
aspect of the matter, the appeals are liable to be allowed on this ground
alone.
Learned Senior Counsel for the appellant Sri Y. V. Giri
invited our attention to the findings recorded by the learned Writ Court
on 02.05.2014 in CWJC No.13121 of 2006, particularly findings
recorded with regard to certificates impugned being issued in violation
to Sections 4, 5 and 6 of the Bihar and Orissa Public Demand
Recovery Act, the requisitions not being in accordance to the Form- 2
and various other statutory violation noticed and found established in
the earlier writ petition to argue that now when the same certificate
issued is found to be illegal vis-?-vis the appellant and the State, the
learned Writ Court has committed an error in ignoring this aspect of
the matter and deciding the matter in a manner which is not
permissible in law.
Sri Y. V. Giri, learned Senior Counsel for the appellant
vehemently argued that the arguments in the original writ petitions
were heard and the cases were closed for judgment but the judgment
was pronounced after a period of more than one and half year, as a
consequence thereof, an error has crept into the order, inasmuch as the
earlier judgment in CWJC No.13121 of 2006 has not been properly
taken note of.
However, Sri P. K. Verma, learned Additional Advocate
General-3, appearing for the State, invites our attention to para-24 of
the impugned judgment passed by the learned Writ Court and argues
that the effect of order passed in the earlier writ petition have been
considered in paragraph 24 and the same having been rejected, the
contention of the petitioner is not correct.
We find that while considering the effect of the order
passed on 02.05.2014 in CWJC No.13121 of 2006, the learned Writ
Court in paragraph 24 of the impugned order has only stated that the
said judgment is distinguishable in fact and while doing so, has not
taken note of the discussion in detail undertaken by the Writ Court
from page 9 onwards up to page 21 with reference to the statutory
provision to be fulfilled and the violation of the statutory provisions. In
fact, if we go through the detailed judgment rendered on 02.05.2014
between the appellant and the State Government in CWJC No.13121
of 2006, we find that the learned Writ Court have considered various
statutory provisions, the manner in which the certificates are issued
and finding statutory violation in issuance of the certificates, somewhat
in similar nature, have been quashed.
While addressing this issue, it is seen by us in the present
proceedings that the learned Writ Court has not referred to the
judgment rendered earlier on 02.05.2014 in the right perspective and
various important issues arising out of the violation of the statutory
provision have not been properly considered. That being so, it is a fit
case where these three appeals should be allowed, order passed by the
writ Court quashed and the matter remanded to the learned Writ Court
for fresh consideration.
Accordingly, all these three appeals are allowed. The
order passed by the learned Writ Court is set aside and the matter is
remanded to the learned Writ Court for fresh consideration.