(^P ic^?$7 / - BEFORE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR -L/ W.P.rCVNo. 7 ' '-1 /201Q PETITIONER Chhattisgarh Infrastructure Development Corporation, Shastri Chowk - Raipur, Through - Depot Manager, CIDC, Raipur, Distt- Raipur (C.G.) VERSUS RESPONDENTS ^''.w""..--" ^^c"" .'•Mrv> ^^^>''' ^^^h 1) 2) 3) 4) 5) Ram Manorath Agarwal, S/o Trilokinath Agarwal, R/o Aarang, Tehsil & Distt- Raipur(C.G.) Smt. Sohagbati Agarwal, W/o Ram Manorath Agarwal R/o Aarang, Tehsil & Distt- Raipur(C.G.) Smt. Vandana Agarwal Wd/o Late Shrikant Agarwal, R/o Aarang, Tehsil & Distt- Raipur (C.G.) Balkishan S/o Ramcharan Mudgal, Occupation Driver, C/o Depot Manager, Durg Depot, MPSRTC, Durg (C.G.) Driving License no. B - 7925/83, Bus no. CPE-8870. \5'\0 ^\^ Madhya Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, Through It's Chairman, Bhopal (M.P.) and owner ofBus no. y/f ^' ^ CPE-8870. 1 ...^.^—..-._../.. ~'- ~""/' 2Z7rv ; WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 220'OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA. The above named Petitioner respectfully submits as under:- ^- L' z Q» ^ r^; ^ « -t f ©^ 1 B 1.3 ^ 1 §. ^ sr ^rs ^ i ^ ^ ^ B £ rx •/.^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Sinale Bench: Hon'ble Shri Justice PrashantKumar Mishra Writ Petition (C.) No.742 of 2010 Petitioner Respondents versys Chhattisgarh Infrastructure Development Corporation Ram Manorath Agarwal and others Present: Shri Anup Majumdar, counsel for the petitioner. Shri H.B.Agrawal, Senior Advocate with Shri Pankaj Agrawal and Miss S. Khan, counsel for respondents No.1 to 3. None for respondents No.4, 5 and newly added respondent No.6. Writ Petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India ORAL ORDER (Passed on 8th February, 2011) Heard. 2. The petitioner Chhattisgarh infrastructure Development Corporation has sought quashment of the order dated 15-10-2009 passed by the District Judge, Raipur in Execution Case No. 198/1984 and has further prayed that the petitioner/Corporation be exonerated from its liability to satisfy the award to the extent of 77.76% of the concerned award. 3. Undisputed facts of the case, in short, are that the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Raipur passed an award on 9-1-1993 in Claim Case No. 198/1984 for Rs.78,000/- in favour of the claimants inclusive of the amount of interim compensation. In the said claim petition, Madhya PradeshState Road Transport Corporation, the ^ owner ofthe offending vehicle was arrayed as non-claimant No.1. ,^S3^ f C:.."^ '^. I 8%3-1, , v^.j.:;^ ^ 4. As a result of the promulgation of the Madhya Pradesh Reorganisation Act, 2000 (henceforth 'the Act'), State of Chhattisgarh was created. In Section 58 of the Act, provisions were made regarding the State Road Transport Corporation amongst other corporations. It has been provided that upon failure of the successor States to mutually agree for an arrangement for the functioning of the Road Transport Corporation, such Corporation shall be dissolved on such date as the Central Government may, by order, appoint and upon such dissolution, its assets, rights and liabilities shall be apportioned between the successor States of Madhya Pradesh and Chhattisgarh in such manner as may be agreed upon between them within one year of the dissolution of the Board or the Corporation, as the case may be, or if no agreement is reached, in such manner, as the Central Government may, by order, determine. 5. In exercise of the powers conferred upon the Central Government under sub-section (3) of Section 58 pf the Act, the Central Government issued a notification in the Gazette of India dated 27-12-2002 making arrangement to the following effect: "(1) The field staff, buses and stores of the Madhya Pradesh State Road Corporation shall be divided on the basis of 'as is where is' as on 1st November, 2000. The head office staff shall be shared by the ratio of 18:82 between Chhattisgarh and Madhya Pradesh. The -i respective States shall be responsible for their share of i^staff from the date of dissolution. ^— --. ^:y :.E';;"^..^r (2) The sharing of current assets (excluding buses and stores) and liabilities including loans, advances, etc. shall be made by arriving at the formula midway between the formulae suggested by Government of Madhya Pradesh and Chhattisgarh, i.e., between 18:82 suggested by Chhattisgarh and 26.49:73.51 suggested by Madhya Pradesh. (3) One representative of Government of Chhattisgarh shall be taken on the Board of Madhya Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation for the transitional period till division is complete. (4) Salary of staff including Voluntary Retirement Scheme till the date of dissolution shall be paid by the existing undivided Corporation." ^ 6. As the execution of the award was pending before the Claims Tribunal, the petitioner Chhattisgarh Infrastructure Development Corporation was arrayed as one of the non-claimants/successor-in- interest of the erstwhile Madhya Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation. An objection was raised by the Corporation before the Claims Tribunal regarding apportionment of its tiability in the same ratio as has been fixed by the Central Government in the notification dated 27-12-2002. The objection was overruled/rejected by the Claims Tribunal on the ground that the claimants may not be able to recover the amount from the erstwhile owner, i.e., the Madhya Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation. 7. Shri Anup Majumdar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the learned Claims Tribunal should have allowed the objection and exonerated the petitioner from the liability .^^»^^^»^^.»»&»s.^ ~.^ of payment of compensation to the extent of 77.76% in terms of the Central Government's notification dated 27-12-2002. He would submit that in no case the petitioner would be liable for depositing more amount than the ratio fixed by the Central Government. 8. Shri H.B.Agrawal, learned Senior Advocate with Shri Pankaj Agrawal and Miss S. Khan, learned counsel appearing for respondents No.1 to 3/claimants has vehemently argued that the order passed by the Claims Tribunal needs no interference as the petitioner being thesuccessor-in-interest of the erstwhile Madhya Pradesh State'Road Transport Corporation is liable to deposit the entire award amount in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bhilai Power Supply Co. Ltd. vs. State of M.P. and others, (2003) 2 SCC 216. 9. There is no dispute regarding the power of the Central Govemment and the consequent issuance of the notification dated 27-12-2002 in exercise of'the powers under sub-section (3) of Section 58 of the Act. There is also no dispute that in the said arrangement, the petitioner has been held to be tiable in the same ratio as has been mentioned in clause (2) ofthe notification. 10. It has been informed that in the meanwhile, respondent No.5 Madhya Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation has also been dissolved and in its place a new Corporation in the name of Madhya Pradesh Road Transport Corporation has been constituted. The !-said newly constituted Corporation has been arrayed as respondent r - .<^; ...'^:- ^^ ^ No.6 and was served Dasti notice yet there is no representation on its behalf. 11. In cases involving third party claims, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Swaran Singh and others, (2004) 3 SCC 297, has held that in third party claims the insurance company should be directed to deposit the amount and later on recover it from the owner as it is ordinarily difficult for the claimants to recover the amount from the owners. In the present case, respondent No.5 Madhya Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation and respondent No.6 Madhya Pradesh Road Transport Corporation are not appearing before the Claims Tribunal or before this Court. No assets of the said respondents are avaitable in the State of Chhattisgarh. Whatever assets of the erstwhile Corporation was available are in possession of the petitioner/Corporation. Seeking guidance from the principle of pay and recover and in the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the considered opinion that in the present case also, the petitioner, even if is not liable to satisfy the entire award, should deposit the award amount and later on recover it from respondent No.5 Madhya Pradesh State Road Transport COrporation/respondent No.6 Madhya Pradesh Road Transport Corporation, as the case may be, at the time of settlement of accounts. between the petitioner and the said respondent No-5/respondent No.6. If the accounts have already been settled, the petitioner shall be entitled to recover the same from respondent No.S/respondent No.6 by moving an application before ^ the Claims Tribunal or otherwise. The petitioner shall deposit the ft amount within a period of three months from today. It is ordered accordingly. 12. The instant writ petition stands allowed with the above directions. Sd/- Prashant Kumar Mishra Judge Gopal