IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.3637 of 2010 SMT. MANJU SINGH W/O SHRI ANIL KUMAR SINGH AT PRESENT RESIDING AT BANK ROAD, PATNA, P.S.- GANDHI MAIDAN, DISTT.- PATNA Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, GOPALGANJ For the Petitioner : Mr. Bipin Bihari Singh, Advocate. For the State : Mr. Ritesh Kumar, AC to AAG-I. For IFCI Bank : Mrs. Sheela Sharma, Advocate. ----------- 10. 14.05.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner the State and the counsel for the IFCI Bank. 2. Petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 25.1.2010, Annexure-5 passed by the Collector, Gopalganj, whereunder he has directed the Circle Officer, Hathwa to take possession of the land which was the subject matter of lease deed executed by the then Collector, Gopalganj dated 18.9.1979 in favour of M/s. Hathwa Vanaspati Ltd. From perusal of order dated 25.1.2010 it is evident that the said order has been passed as the learned Collector is satisfied that the original promoter of Hathwa Vanaspati Ltd. violated the terms of the lease dated 18.9.1979. Petitioner herein is not the promoter of M/s. Hathwa Vanaspati Ltd. which became sick in the year 1987, whereafter the matter was referred to the Board of Industrial Finance and Reconstruction(BIFR) which recommended liquidation of M/s Hathwa Vanaspati Ltd. and on the basis of the report of the BIFR - 2 - Company Petition No.05 of 1992 was registered by this Court for liquidation of the company and the matter remained pending before the Company Judge of this Court as byers of the company were not available. The assets of the company remained non- performing asset for about 15 years, whereafter under orders of the Company Judge dated 1.11.2007, Annexure-1 the asset of the company could be sold in favour of petitioner herein for Rs.1 crore and 97 lakhs. In compliance of the orders of the Company Judge dated 1.11.2007 and 17.1.2008, Annexures-1 and 2 the official liquidator executed the lease deed in favour of petitioner herein for the remainder of the term and this Court under orders dated 17.1.2008 observed that the purchaser is entitled to apply before the State Government for renewal of the lease, which is to expire in two years from 17.1.2008. In the light of the direction of the Company Judge the purchaser applied for renewal of the lease before the District Magistrate, Gopalganj so as to enable the District Magistrate to forward the request of the petitioner for renewal of the lease to the State Government for consideration. The Collector without forwarding the request of the petitioner for renewal of the lease to the State Government proceeded to pass the impugned order directing the Circle Officer to resume - 3 - possession of the land leased out in favour of petitioner- purchaser by the official liquidator on the ground that the ex- promoter had violated the terms of the lease. The order of the Collector directing the Circle Officer to resume possession of the land leased out in favour of petitioner is wholly without jurisdiction as for violation of the terms of the lease by the original promoter the purchaser of the leased property from the Company Judge cannot be held responsible and the order impugned dated 25.1.2010, Annexure-5 suffers from the vice of arbitrariness, which is, accordingly, quashed. Any action, which the Collector wanted to take against the purchaser he could have taken only with the permission of the Company Judge and not on his own as the purchase was made under the orders of the Company Judge. 3. While quashing the impugned order this Court would like to observe about the conduct of the Collector, Gopalganj who has passed the impugned order. This Court brought to the notice of the Collector on 11.3.2010 the illegality in the impugned order whereafter he submitted that the matter be adjourned to 23.4.2010 so that he may satisfy this Court about the legality and correctness of the order dated 25.1.2010. This - 4 - Court, accordingly, allowed him liberty to come out with fresh grounds in support of his order, whereafter learned Collector by filing supplementary affidavit on 23.4.2010 challenged the genuineness of the original lease deed dated 18.9.1979. This Court thereafter took steps for securing attendance of the secured creditors in the present proceeding and having secured their attendance in the proceeding directed the counsel for the secured creditor, namely, the IDBI and IFCI Bank under order dated 29.4.2010 to produce the original lease deed dated 18.9.1979 executed by the then Collector, Gopalganj in favour of M/s Hathwa Vanaspati Ltd. by 6.5.2010 for which the learned counsel for the secured creditor readily agreed. The IFCI Bank produced the original lease document dated 18.9.1979 before this Court on 6.5.2010 for perusal by the Collector and matter was adjourned to 10.5.2010 to enable the collector to personally peruse the document. The Collector in spite of opportunity granted by this Court to peruse the lease document and verify its genuineness did not come forward to peruse the document and meekly conceded before this Court through his counsel on 10.5.2010 that he does not dispute the genuineness of the lease deed. Such conduct of the Collector, Gopalganj to first challenge - 5 - the genuineness of the document with a view to support his illegal order and when the document is produced to concede its genuineness gives impression to this Court that the Collector wanted to deflect the point in issue raised in the writ case by disputing the genuineness of the original lease document as perhaps he was under impression that the original document may not be made available in the present proceeding but he was not aware of the long arms of the Court. Such approach of the Collector of the district much less a lesser revenue authority serving under him speaks ill of the State administration and this Court does not approve of such conduct on the part of the Collector. Collector being the highest revenue authority in the district if behaves in a manner which is even worse than a private litigant the condition of the ordinary citizen who is residing within his jurisdiction is for any one to imagine. Having set aside the order passed by the Collector, I call upon the State Government to look into the conduct of the Collector and take appropriate action against him. 4. The writ application is, accordingly, disposed of. AFR Rajesh/ (V. N. Sinha, J.)