Vikram India Ltd. v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.1113 of 2007 ====================================================== Vikram India Ltd., a Company incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 having a place of business at Kishanganj and its registered office situated at Kolkata through Its Commercial ExecutiveCum-Authorized Signatory, Krishna Kumar Maskara, S/O Shri Ashok Kumar Maskara, Resident Of 134, G.T. Road (S), P.S.- Shibpur, DistrictHowrah. .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State of Bihar through the Chief Secretary, Old Secretariat, Patna

2. The Secretary, Department of Rural Development, Old Secretariat, Patna

3. The Collector-Cum-District Magistrate, Kishanganj

4. The District Rural Development Agencies, Kishanganj through Its Chief Executive Officer

5. The Dy. Development Commissioner, Kishanganj

6. The Union of India, through the Secretary, Ministry of Rural Development, New Delhi .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Alok Kumar Agrawal, Advocate.

For the Respondent/s :

Mr. Pushkar Narain Shahi, AAG 10.

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MIHIR KUMAR JHA ORAL JUDGMENT 20-05-2015 Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. At long last, the wisdom has dawn on the authorities of the Government of Bihar, who now have found a way out to save its own tea industry.

3. Today, in a third supplementary counter affidavit filed on behalf of the Deputy Development Commissioner, Kishanganj and District Magistrate, Kishanganj, it has been stated that on 29.04.2015, a lease has been executed between the Deputy Development Commissioner, Kishanganj, the first part and Sri Sampat Mal Sancheti, proprietor of the company Sancheti Tea Company, Silliguri on the

Patna High Court CWJC No.1113 of 2007 (26) dt.20-05-2015 2/2 second part, which has also been registered on 29.04.2015. It has also been stated that the physical possession of the industrial unit has been handed over to the lessee, namely, Sancheti Tea Company, Silliguri on 06.05.2015.

4. That should give a sense of reprieve to the petitioner, who was all along finding it difficult to continue over the spot and provide security to the property of the industry.

5. Though, Mr. Alok Kumar Agrawal, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, has also tried to now raise some ancillary issues relating to amount that the petitioner may become entitled. Mr. P.N.Shahi, learned AAG-10, has immediately sought to clarify that whatever amount was admissible and payable to the petitioner has already been paid and this aspect has also been made on affidavit filed by the respondents in this case.

6. Be that as it may, the main concern of this Court was to make the industrial concern viable and workable. Now, when that has been achieved, this Court does not feel any necessity to continue with the proceeding of this case.

7. That being so, this writ application now has become infructuous and is, accordingly, disposed of. (Mihir Kumar Jha, J) Sujit/- U