IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.827 of 2010 1. SMT.MEENA DEVI W/O LATE PREM NATH GUPTA R/O BAHDURPUR SECTOR-1, BEHIND PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK, MAHATMA GANDHI NAGAR, PATNA, P.S- AGAM KUAN, DISTT- PATNA Versus 1. BIHAR STATE HOUSING BOARD THROUGH THE CHAIRMAN 2. MANAGING DIRECTOR BIHAR STATE HOUSING BOARD, PATNA 3. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, BIHAR STATE HOUSING BOARD PATNA DIVISION NO.1, PATNA 4. ASISTANT ENGINEER-IV BIHAR STATE HOUSING BOARD, PATNA ----------- 2. 28.03.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the Bihar State Housing Board. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 30.11.2006, informing her that Appeal No. 50 of 1989 preferred by the Board against the order of the competent authority dated 15.3.1989 in her favour had been set aside on 17.11.2000 (read as 26.7.2000). She has consequently been directed to vacate the premises in question within 72 hours failing which she would be forcibly evicted. She further alleges that she was not aware of the appellate proceedings and a copy of the order has not been given to her despite her request. On insisting through her counsel she has been informed on 30.9.2009 that she may obtain the 2 appellate order dated 26.7.2000 from the concerned. The appellate order has now been brought on record as Annexure-„A‟ to the counter affidavit. To obviate any challenge by the respondents on technicalities that the petitioner did not file any amendment application challenging Annexure-A to the counter affidavit, this Court in exercise of its discretionary writ jurisdiction holds that the order dated 26.7.2000 should have more appropriately formed part of the order of the respondents dated 30.11.2006 or 30.9.2009. It shall therefore be now read as part of the same. It is trite law that it is the bounden duty of the party to a litigation who is in possession of a document to place it before the Court to enable the Court to finally adjudicate matters. This duty becomes more onerous if the respondent falls within the definition “State” under Article 12 of the Constitution of India. The least that the respondent Board could have done was to supply a copy of the Appellate order along with its letter dated 30.9.2009, rather than act like a private litigant with a 59 years widow old lady. In any event of the matter it was the bounden duty of the Board to place the appellate order before the Court if it had not furnished the same to the petitioner. The observation 3 of the Supreme Court in (1988)1 SCC 626 (National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Jugal Kishore) are trite at Paragraph-10 as follows:- “10. Before parting with the case, we consider it necessary to refer to the attitude often adopted by the Insurance Companies, as was adopted even in this case, of not filing a copy of the policy before the Tribunal and even before the High Court in appeal. In this connection what is of significance is that the claimants for compensation under the Act are invariably not possessed of either the policy or a copy thereof. This Court has consistently emphasised that it is the duty of the party which is in possession of a document which would be helpful in doing justice in the cause to produce the said document and such party should not be permitted to take shelter behind the abstract doctrine of burden of proof. This duty is greater in the case of instrumentalities of the State such as the appellant who are under an obligation to act fairly. In many cases even the owner of the vehicle for reasons known to him does not choose to produce the policy or a copy thereof. We accordingly wish to emphasise that in all such cases where the Insurance Company concerned wishes to take a defence in a claim petition that its liability is not in excess of the statutory liability it should file a copy of the insurance policy along with its defence. Even in the instant case had it been done so at the appropriate stage necessity of approaching this Court in civil appeal would in all probability have been avoided. Filing a copy of the policy, therefore, not only cuts short avoidable litigation but also helps the court in doing justice between the parties. The obligation on the part of the State or its instrumentalities to act fairly can never be over- emphasised.” 4 Suffice it to notice that the petitioner claims to have purchased the lands in question from one Purnima Devi wife of late Moti Lal, Mohalla Bhanwar Pokhar, P.S. Pirbahor registered on 29.5.1981 whereafter her name was mutated in Government revenue record and she constructed a house upon the said land and Municipal Corporation sanctioned a holding number and holding tax has been paid from the year 1982. In 1987, the respondent Board questioned her rights contending that it was one of the plots acquired as far back as 1975. The respondent Board moved before the competent authority under Section 59 of the Bihar State Housing Board Act (hereinafter referred to as the „Act‟) numbered as Case No. 6 of 1987. The competent authority on 15.3.1989 held that the petitioner had acted bona fide and that the lands in question were registered in her name with the revenue authority as also the Patna Municipal Corporation. Her possession was not affecting the Board adversely. But since the land had been acquired by the Board, the petitioner was required to seek fresh settlement by payment of development and other necessary charges. The Board appeared to have gone in appeal 5 against the order before the appellate authority under Section 60 of the Act. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that no notice of the appellate proceedings was ever given to the petitioner and therefore she had no opportunity to defend herself. Her husband passed away on 2.3.2008 after a prolonged illness and she would be left without a roof over her head if she is now ousted at this advanced age. Learned counsel for the Board points out from the appellate order dated 26.7.2000 that registered notice was issued to the petitioner. She did not appear. Assuming for the sake of argument that there shall be a presumption that a registered notice sent in normal course had reached its destination and the answerability lies with the petitioner to explain why she did not participate, it shall still leave open the question of the nature of the appellate order. The appeal was of the Board. The grounds for appeal was in the knowledge of the Board. Even if the petitioner did not participate, the appellant was required to satisfy the appellate authority of the illegality in the order dated 15.3.1989. It was for the appellate authority to then apply its mind and pass a reasoned and speaking order why it was satisfied that 6 the grounds mentioned in the appeal were good grounds and for reasoned discussed the appeal could have been allowed. If the petitioner did not appear to contest the appeal, the appellate authority was not relieved of this duty and it was not permissible for it to pass an unreasoned, non-speaking order upsetting the original order. The duties of the appellate court have been noticed in Narinder Mohan Arya v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., (2006) 4 SCC 713, at Paragraph-36 as follows:- “36. The order of the Appellate Authority demonstrates total non- application of mind. The Appellate Authority, when the Rules require application of mind on several factors and serious contentions have been raised, was bound to assign reasons so as to enable the writ court to ascertain as to whether he had applied his mind to the relevant factors which the statute requires him to do…….” This duty becomes more onerous when the appellate Court proposes to upset an order made in favour of the adversary by the original Court depriving the adversary of a benefit and visiting it with serious consequences. The conduct of the Board in refusing to furnish a copy of the appellate order to the petitioner 7 and condescendingly placing it before this Court when it has been left be no option is deprecated by the Court. The appellate order dated 26.7.2000 in Appeal No. 50 of 1989 is set aside. The matter is remanded to the appellate authority to hear the petitioner and pass fresh, reasoned and speaking order in accordance with law. The appellate authority shall be obliged to adequately consider the reasoned conclusion given by the competent authority. In so far as the petitioner is concerned, her liability shall rest as on 15.3.1989. Let the appellate authority pass a reasoned and speaking order in the aforesaid manner within a maximum period of two months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. The consequential order dated 30.11.2006 automatically stands set aside. The writ application stands allowed. P. Kumar ( Navin Sinha, J.)