IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.1509 of 2011 Sri Bhagwati Hozari Mill (Pvt. Ltd.) through its Managing Director, Central Jail Road, Tilkamanjhi, P.S. Kotwali, District- Bhagalpur. Versus 1. The Food Corporation of India through its District Manager, District Office, Kachahari Road, Bhagalpur. 2. The State of Bihar through Commissioner, Bhagalpur ---------------------------------- 2. 13.10.2011 Heard Mr. Shashi Shekhar Divivedi learned Senior counsel for the petitioner, Mr. P. K. Verma learned counsel appearing for the respondent no.1 and learned A.C. to G.A. 6 for the respondent no. 2. Counter affidavit has been filed by the State of Bihar which is kept on record. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 29.9.2010 passed by the Commissioner, Bhagalpur in Miscellaneous Petition No. 27 of 2010-2011 by which his petition for correction of typographical error in his original order dated 18.12.2000 passed by him in House Control Revision No. 3 of 1994-95 has been rejected. Learned counsel submits that by the said order 25% increase after every three years in rent was decided and specified in the following terms. “The House Controller had fixed fair rent at the rate of Rs. 1.15 per sq. ft. w.e.f. 11.9.87 to 22.11.91 from 23.11.91 the enhancement of rent was to be increased by 25% for every three years. Thus following this formula the rate of fair rent fixed after 25% increase after every 2 three years is as following:- 23.11.91 to 22.11.94 @ Rs.1.44 per sq. ft. 23.11.94 to 22.11.97 @ Rs. 1.30 per sq. ft. 23.11.97 to 22.11.2000 @ Rs. 2.25 per sq. ft. 23.11.2000 to 22.11.2003 @ Rs. 2.81 per sq. ft. The order passed by the appellate authority stands modified and the petitioner is directed to pay fair rent at the rates above which have been arrived at by the House Controller and also in the light of Sharswati Devi & others Vs. Commissioner of Bhagalpur Division case”. He submits that the rent was fixed for the period 23.11.91 to 22.11.94 at the rate of Rs. 1.44 per square feet. Thereafter from 23.11.94 to 22.11.97 at the rate of Rs. 1.30 per square feet then from 23.11.97 to 22.11.2000 at the rate of 2.25 per square feet and 23.11.2000 to 22.11.2003 at the rate of Rs. 2.81 per square feet. He points out that the said calculation was based on 25% increase after every three years and the same if calculated, then beginning from Rs. 1.44 an addition of 25% should come to Rs. 1.80 and not Rs. 1.30 as has been mentioned. He further argues to buttress his claim that if upon Rs. 1.80, 25% is added then it comes to Rs. 2.25 which is shown in the chart concerned and thereafter Rs. 2.81 is .25% increase upon Rs. 2.25. He submits that this being purely a 3 typographical error ought to have been corrected by the Commissioner who rejected the petition only on the ground that it has been filed after 7-8 months and also on wrong premise that nobody appears to press this application even though the very opening line of the order mentions that learned counsel for the parties were heard. Learned counsel for the Food Corporation on the other hand submits that without going on the merits of the case, as a matter of propriety this Court would not interfere in the matter for the reason that the said original order of the Commissioner was challenged by the parties before this Court and was ultimately taken to the L.P.A Bench and this Court by order dated 12.12.2007 disposed off the L.P.A. partly allowing the order of the Commissioner dated 18.12.2000 to the extent that the rent fixed for the period 23.11.2000 onwards was struck down on the ground that he has no power to decide rent for future and the rest of the order was upheld. According to him, since the order of whose correction was sought stood merged in the order of the Division Bench of this Court, it would be appropriate that the petitioner, for any modification, ought to move the Division Bench. Learned counsel for the petitioner on the 4 other hand contends that the Division Bench of this Court while modifying the order of the Commissioner has upheld the ratio of the original order in as much as 25% increase every three years was not interfered with. In that view of the matter, he submits that the principle of merger would not apply since he has not asked for any modification/reconsideration of the ratio of that order and only appropriate correction is required to be made in wrong calculation/typographical error which has appeared in the order and which also stands proved by the chart typed/prepared in the said order. Upon hearing learned counsel for the parties, this Court finds that the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is well founded. The petition filed by him before the Commissioner was only with regard to making appropriate correction in the apparently wrong figure appearing in the chart which had been typed in the order concerned. There being no change in the ratio or the nature of the order which was upheld by the Division Bench of this Court, the petitioner was justified in approaching the Court which had passed that order having such typographical error to correct the same. For the reasons aforesaid the order impugned dated 29.09.2010 is set aside. The matter is 5 remanded back to the Commissioner, Bhagalpur for making appropriate correction in the figure given in the chart by which 25 % rent has been enhanced every three years. With the aforementioned directions the writ petition stands disposed off. Anand Kr. (Ahsanuddin Amanullah, J.)