ASHOK KUMAR Vs. SATYAWATI AND OTHERS
LAWS(P&H)-2015-12-329
HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Decided on December 18,2015

ASHOK KUMAR Appellant
VERSUS
Satyawati And Others Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

OM PRAKASH CHAUTALA VS. KANWAR BHAN [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

Jaspal Singh, J. - (1.)Vide this common order, we intend to dispose of LPA No. 787 of 2015 preferred by Ashok Kumar and LPA No. 825 of 2015 preferred by Dinesh Bajaj, as both these appeals have arisen out of the judgment/order dated Feb. 11, 2015 passed by learned Single Judge in CWP No. 14362 of 2012, titled Satyawati & another Vs. State of Haryana and others .
(2.)Brief facts of the case are that Vinod Kumar (now deceased) was given the disputed shop on lease @ Rs. 360.00 per month as rent, in the year 1985 where he used to work as auto mechanic. After the death of Vinod Kumar, his mother, wife and minor daughter have inherited his property being legal heirs. Ashok Kumar who allegedly had an evil 's eye on the disputed shop, approached the petitioners (in writ petition) with the request that he would work on the shop as an employee. Consequently, he started working as employee. In the year 2006, petitioners came to know that Ashok Kumar had not paid the rent to respondent-Municipal Corporation for the last many years and was not performing his duties diligently, rather with evil design he got installed telephone and electricity connections in his name. Thereafter, petitioners approached the Municipal Corporation, Ambala and came to know about the intention of Ashok Kumar to get the disputed shop transferred in his name. When information under the Right to Information Act was got from the authorities, it transpired that Ashok Kumar was trying to claim the ownership. In this regard, a complaint was filed before the Honourable Governor of Haryana. Upon this, inquiry was got conducted and direction was issued to the petitioners to move application to the Secretary, Municipal Corporation (City), Ambala for getting the shop transferred in their favour. Pursuant to it, petitioners moved application for getting the shop transferred in their name. On the other hand, Ashok Kumar also moved application claiming his title over the disputed shop. Ultimately, Secretary, Municipal Corporation processed the matter vide letter dated Dec. 20, 2011. Vide letter dated Dec. 28, 2011 opinion of District Attorney, Ambala was sought and he gave his opinion that Ashok Kumar has taken the possession of the disputed shop from the family members of the deceased-Vinod Kumar and has paid entire consideration for transfer of possession of the disputed shop to Mamta Rani, widow of Vinod Kumar. Therefore, he has a better case for transfer of the lease of the disputed shop in his name. Thereafter, the Secretary and Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Ambala relying upon the legal opinion of the Deputy District Attorney directed to transfer lease/tenancy of the disputed shop in favour of Ashok Kumar. The aforesaid decision was challenged by the petitioners and learned Single Judge has allowed their writ petition.
(3.)Through LPA No. 825 of 2015, appellant-Dinesh Bajaj has sought the setting aside and expunction of disparaging remarks and adverse observations made qua him by learned Single Judge in the impugned judgment dated Feb. 11, 2015 passed in CWP No. 14362 of 2012. The learned Senior Counsel for the appellant-Dinesh Bajaj has assailed the adverse remarks submitting that recording of disparaging remarks by learned Single Judge were not at all required to adjudicate upon the issues. In fact, neither appellant-Dinesh Bajaj was a party to the proceedings nor he has been afforded any opportunity of explaining or defending himself. Time and again the Honourable Apex Court has deprecated the practice of making observations in judgments, unless the person(s) in respect of whom comments and criticisms were being made were parties to the proceedings and further they were granted an opportunity of having their say in the matter. On this score alone the adverse remarks made by learned Single Judge are not sustainable in the eyes of law. To butters his contention learned Senior Counsel for the appellant-Dinessh Bajaj has relied upon the judgment of Honourable Apex Court captioned as Om Parkash Chautala Vs. Kanwar Bhan, (2014) 5 SCC 417 .


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.