IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.10375 of 2010 1. NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. GAYA THROUGH SRI DAMODAR SETHI, CHIEF REGIONAL MANAGER AND DULY CONSTITUTED ATTORNEY NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED , REGIONAL OFFICE 4TH FLOOR SONE BHAWAN B.C. PATEL ROAD, PATNA P.O. G.P.O. P.S. SACHIWALAYA 800001- ---petitioner Versus 1. THE UNION OF INDIA, THROUGH THE SECRETARY , MINISTRY OF FINANCE, DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMIC AFFAIRS, ECONOMIC DIVISION, THIRD FLOOR , JIVAN VIHAR, NEW DELHI. 2. THE LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA , A CORPORATE BODY OF THE GOVT. OF INDIA THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN HAVING ITS HEAD OFFICE AT YOGAKSHENA, JEEVAN BIMA MARG, MUMBAI. 3. DIVISIONAL OFFICE, LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION, FRASER ROAD, THROUGH ITS CONSTITUTED ATTORNEY SRI A. M. SAHAY , (OS) PATNA DIVISIONAL OFFICE, FRASER ROAD,PATNA,800001-----------respondents ----------- For the petitioner :Mr.Ashok Priyadarshi,Advocate For L.I.C.I. :Mr.Rajeev Ranjan Prasad,Advocate For Union of India :Mr.Ashok Kumar Singh,C.G.C. ---- 2. 09.7.2010 Heard learned counsels for the petitioner, National Insurance Company Limited, the respondent Nos. 2 & 3, L.I.C. of India and the Central Government Counsel. The petitioner seeks a direction to keep in abeyance the dispute between the National Insurance Company Limited and the L.I.C. of India till its settlement in the light of notification issued by the Central Government and set aside the order passed by the Estate Officer under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 by which he has rejected the preliminary objection raised by the petitioner in case No. EO/001/2009. 2 The aforesaid eviction case has been filed by the respondent L.I.C. under the provisions of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 for an order of eviction of the petitioner from the rented premises and to pass an award/decree of Rs.14,72,578/- together with interest at the rate of 18% per annum up to 17.4.2008 and compensation at the market rate of rent of Rs.50/- per square feet for the total period of unauthorized occupation from 18.4.2008 till the date of delivery of vacant possession. The petitioner on notice appeared and filed objection in terms of the decision of the Supreme Court and the notification of the Central Government under which no litigation involving such disputes between inter alia two public sector undertakings of the Central Government are to be taken up in a Court or Tribunal without the matter first examined and given permission/clearance by High-Powered Committee generally known as Committee on Disputes which has been set up by the Cabinet Secretariat under the direction of the Supreme Court in the O.N.G.C. cases. By the impugned order dated 13.5.2010 the Estate Officer dismissed the petition dated 20.11.2009 raising preliminary 3 objection and directed the proceedings to continue. Aggrieved by the same the petitioner has come to this Court. Several decisions have been cited by learned counsel for both the parties. However, the main decision of the two Judges Bench of the Supreme Court relied upon by learned counsel for the respondent L.I.C. is that of Steel Authority of India Ltd. vs. Life Insurance Corporation of India and others : (1997)5 SCC 511 in paragraphs 2 & 3 of which it has been held as follows : “2. The predecessor of the petitioner Company had taken on rent the disputed premises from the Life Insurance Corporation on the 4th floor of Jeevan Deep Building, Parliament Street, New Delhi. Since the petitioner had not vacated the premises, action was taken for eviction under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act. The petitioner challenged the action in the High Court contending that this Court had issued directions in IAs Nos. 4 and 4 (sic) of 1992 in Civil Appeals Nos. 2058-59 of 1988 to constitute a High Powered Committee to resolve the disputes between the Public Sector Undertaking and the Government of India of the Ministry concerned by a Committee composed of Cabinet Secretary, Secretary in Ministry of Law and Secretary in the Bureau of Public Sector Undertakings to decide the disputes without needless consumption of time and waste of public funds. The petitioner has sought for such a reference and contends that the High Powered Committee should have been constituted and decided the matter. We find no force in the contention. 4 3. The object of issuing direction in those matters was to decide the fiscal dispute in case of major policy matters to save the public money and Court’s valuable time, and disputes could amicably be settled between the Public Sector Undertaking and the Government of India or the State Governments. The intention was not to resolve the disputes like eviction of a company or public undertaking under Public Premises (Unauthorised Occupants) Act; such petty disputes are not directed to be dealt with by the high level officers whose duty and time is of very important nature otherwise. Under these circumstances, the High Court has not committed any error warranting interference.” Learned counsel for the petitioner, on the other hand, places the reliance mainly upon the Three Judges Bench decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Oil & Natural Gas Commission vs. Collector of Central Excise : (2004) 6 SCC 437 in paragraphs 4 to 7 of which it has been held as follows : “4. There are some doubts and problems that have arisen in the working out of these arrangements which require to be clarified and some creases ironed out. Some doubts persist as to the precise import and implications of the words “and recourse to litigation should be avoided”. It is clear that the order of this Court is not to the effect that- nor can that be done- so far as the Union of India and its statutory corporations are concerned, their statutory remedies are effaced. Indeed, the purpose of the constitution of the High-Powered Committee was not to take away those 5 remedies. The relevant portion of the order reads: (SCC pp. 541-42, para 3) “3. We direct that the Government of India shall set up a committee consisting of representatives from the Ministry of Industry, the Bureau of Public Enterprises and the Ministry of Law, to monitor disputes between Ministry and Ministry of the Government of India, Ministry and public sector undertakings of the Government of India and public sector undertakings in between themselves, to ensure that no litigation comes to court or to a tribunal without the matter having been first examined by the Committee and its clearance for litigation. The Government may include a representative of the Ministry concerned in a specific case and one from the Ministry of Finance in the Committee. Senior officers only should be nominated so that the Committee would function with status, control and discipline.” (emphasis supplied) It is abundantly clear that the machinery contemplated is only to ensure that no litigation comes to court without the parties having had an opportunity of conciliation before an in-house committee. 5. It is also clarified that even the pending matters before any court or tribunal should also be the subject- matter of the deliberations of the High-Powered Committee. All the matters pending as of today either instituted by the Union of India or any of the public sector undertakings shall within one month from today be referred by the appellant or the petitioner, as the case may be, to the High-Powered Committee. The High- Powered Committee will deal with these matters most expeditiously and endeavour to resolve the matters. 6. Accordingly, there should be no bar to the lodgement of an appeal or petition either by the Union of India 6 or the public sector undertakings before any court or tribunal so as to save limitation. But, before such filing every endeavour should be made to have the clearance of the High- Powered Committee. 7. However, as to what the court or tribunal should do if such judicial remedies are sought before such a court or tribunal, the order of 11-10- 1991 clarifies : (SCC p.542, para 4) “4. It shall be the obligation of every court and every tribunal where such a dispute is raised hereafter to demand a clearance from the Committee in case it has not been so pleaded and in the absence of the clearance, the proceedings would not be proceeded with.” It is true that in Steel Authority of India’s case (supra) the Apex Court had made a distinction between fiscal dispute in case of major policy matters and disputes like eviction of a company or public undertaking under Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act. However, in the Three Judges Bench decision in the O.N.G.C.’s case (supra) it was held that all the matters pending on that date either instituted by the Union of India or any of the public sector undertakings shall within one month be referred by the appellant or the petitioner as the case may be to the High-Powered Committee. No distinction was made in the said Three Judges Bench decision between the fiscal cases and other 7 cases relating to rent or eviction regarding public premises. In fact, it was held that it is the obligation of every court and every tribunal where such a dispute is raised hereafter to demand a clearance from the High-Powered Committee in case it has not been so pleaded and in the absence of the clearance, the proceedings would not be proceeded with. Since a clear direction was given by the Three Judges Bench of the Apex Court with respect to all litigations arising between two public sector undertakings of the Central Government, among others, this Court is of the view that the Estate Officer was obliged to have directed the parties to get clearance from the High-Powered Committee established by the Cabinet Secretariat of the Central Government and in the absence of the said clearance the proceedings before him ought not to have been proceeded with. In the light of the aforesaid discussions, the writ application is allowed. The order dated 13.5.2010 is set aside and it is directed that the Estate Officer shall not proceed with the matter unless clearance has been granted by the High-Powered Committee to the said litigation. The petitioner is directed to approach the High- 8 Powered Committee within a period of two months which shall consider and dispose of the same in the light of the directions of the Apex Court in the O.N.G.C. cases. (Ramesh Kumar Datta,J.) Spal/