( 2025:JHHC:38755 ) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P. (C) No. 436 of 2025 --------- Thakur Vishwanath Shahdeo, Adhyan Kendra through its Secretary Thakur Sudhanshu Nath Shahdeo, aged about 36 years, S/o Late Thakur Navin Nath Shahdeo, resident of Thakur Niwas, Lal Muhalla Barkagarh , P.O.- Jagarnnathpur, P.S. Jagarnnathpur, Dhurwa, District-Ranchi, Jharkhand ... Petitioner -Versus- 1.Heavy Engineering Corporation Limited, through its Chairman-cum-Managing Director, Having its office at H.Q. Building, P.O.-Jagarnnathpur, P.S. – Jagannathpur, Dhurwa, District- Ranchi-834004 , Jharkhand. 2.Deputy General Manager, H.E.C. Town Administration Division, Estate Section, Plant Plaza Road, Sector-III, Dhurwa, P.O.- Jagannathpur, P.S. Jagannathpur, Dhurwa, District- Ranchi- 834004 , Jharkhand. 3. Manager (Estate) , H.E.C. Town Administration Division, Estate Section, Plant Plaza Road, Sector-III, Dhurwa, P.O. – Jagannathpur, P.S. – Jagannathpur, Dhurwa, District- Ranchi- 834004, Jharkhand. 4. Assistant Manager, H.E.C. Town Administration Division, Este Section, Plant Plaza Road, Sector-III , Dhurwa, P.O.- Jagannathpur, P.S. Jagannathpur, Dhurwa, District- Ranchi – 834004, Jharkhand 5. Chief of Township, H.E.C. Town Administration Division, Estate Section, Plant Plaza Road, Sector -III, Dhurwa, P.O.- Jagannathpur, P.S. Jannathpur, Dhurwa, District- Ranchi- 834004, Jharkhand … Respondents --------- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PRASAD --------- For the Petitioner : Mr. Manoj Prasad, Advocate For the Resp. : Mr. Sushant Kumar, AC to SC-II, --------- CAV on 06.11.2025 Pronounced on 22.12.2025 In the instant writ application, the petitioner prays for quashing of letter dated 02.03.2021(i.e.Annexure-7), whereby and whereunder a demand of Rs. 17,54,720/- has been raised by Respondent No.2 for the period 2004-2020, for Quarter No. B-38 allotted in favour of the petitioner ( 2025:JHHC:38755 ) 2 although the rental amount of Rs.55 has been deducted from the salary of Thakur Navin Nath Shahdeo till 30.01.2016 being the legal heir of Thakur Vishwanath Shahdeo. The petitioner further prays of quashing the letter dated 22.11.2022( i.e. Annexure-8) issued by the Respondent No.3, by which the allotment of Qr. No. B-38 of Sector-II, H.E.C. Colony, has been cancelled with immediate effect on the ground of non-payment of rental due and subletting and the Respondents have sealed the quarters and have taken forceful possession after breaking the lock. AND for other ancillary. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the Respondents. 3. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the letter dated 02.03.2021 ( i.e. Annexure -7) and letter dated 22.11.2022 ( i.e. Annexure -8) are illegal, arbitrary and not sustainable in eye of law. It is submitted that the Respondent No.3 has mechanically cancelled the allotment of Quarter No. B-38 of Sector –II, H.E.C. Colony vide its letter dated 22.11.2022 (Annexure-8) on the ground of Non- payment of outstanding dues and Subletting of quarter. Although the Quarter has been dedicated to learn about the freedom fighter Thakur Vishwanath Shahdeo and the Quarter was never sublet to any person and was exclusively used for the pious purposes . It is submitted that the grounds shown for subletting of quarter is totally misleading and concocted as the quarter was never used for residential purposes. The petitioner represented before the authority concerned regarding the high handed approach being played by the Corporation and it ( 2025:JHHC:38755 ) 3 was requested to review the decision sympathetically, however the Respondent Corporation forcefully took the possession of the quarter when it was locked replacing the lock of petitioner. It is submitted that the nobody was residing at the time of forceful possession and putting the lock on the premises by the respondents. It is submitted that the quarter allotted in the year 1993 cannot be cancelled on flimsy grounds. It is submitted that the petitioner is the son of Thakur Navin Nath Shahdeo, legal heir of the veteran freedom fighter and the Landlord of Barkagarh Estate. Thakur Vishwanath Shahdeo was freedom fighter and actively participated in the war for freedom against the Rule of the then British Govt. in 1857. The British Govt. hanged him near Sahid Chowk, Ranchi on 16.04.1858 and who became Martyr. The entire land of Hatia belonged to Barkagarh Estate and the Heavy Engineering Corporation Limited was established in land of Barkagarh Estate. It is submitted that the quarter, in question, was allotted to Thakur Navin Nath Shahdeo and who had also paid the rental amount of Rs. 55/- from his salary since the date of allotment and during the tenure of his service i.e. from 03.06.1995 to 30.01.2016 and the Respondent Corporation never raised any dispute regarding the rent and which is apparent from perusal of his monthly pay slips issued by H.E.C. The Photocopies of few of the salary slips have been enclosed as Annexure-4 Series . ( 2025:JHHC:38755 ) 4 It is submitted that then Secretary of the Thakur Vishwanath Shahdeo, Adhyan Kendra namely Thakur Navin Nath Shahdeo retired on 30.01.2016, as Data Punch Operator and said Thakur Navin Nath Shahdeo was provided employment in Heavy Engineering Corporation in lieu of the land of Barkagarh. During this period Study Centre in the name of Amar Sahid Thakur Vishwanath Shahdeo was running smoothly and the Corporation was getting the rental payment from his salary. Even after the retirement of Thakur Navin Nath Shahdeo, he regularly requested for taking the rent but the Respondents did not pay any heed, superannuation order dated 30.01.2016 and the request letters have been Annexure-5 Series . It is submitted that the rental demand raised by the Respondents is not justified in the light of deductions made from the salary of then employee Thakur Navin Nath Shahdeo. It is submitted that the Respondents cannot unilaterally enhance the rent unreasonably and without prior notice to the petitioner. It is submitted that the Respondents cannot unlawfully break the lock of the quarter and take its possession forcefully in absence of the petitioner. Hence, the letter dated 02.03.2021 (i.e. Annexure-7) and letter dated 22.11.2022 (i.e.Annexure-8) may be set aside and the writ petition may be allowed. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the H.E.C.- Respondent has opposed and submitted that the letter dated 02.03.2021 and 22.11.2022 i.e. Annexure 7 and Annexure 8 respectively are fit and proper and no interference is required. ( 2025:JHHC:38755 ) 5 It is submitted that the respondents had not decided to open the study centre and it had merely allotted the quarter B-38, Sector-2 to the Secretary, Amar Sahid Thakur Vishwanath Shahdeo Adhyan Kendra through allotment order no. 424 of 1993 dated 28.08.1993. It is submitted that the quarter was allotted on several terms and conditions that the allotment was for one year only and the rent was subject to revision at the discretion of the corporation and in case of default, market rent as may be decided by the Management, shall be paid. 5. It is submitted that the rent for quarter was deducted from the salary of the employee of the H.E.C. (i.e. Navin Nath Shahdeo) who was also the Secretary of the Adhyan Kendra. However, the allottee had not vacated the quarter even after one year of the allotment and therefore rent was still being deducted from the salary the allottee, however notices for market rent was continuously being served to the Secretary of the Adhyan Kendra. It is submitted that the quarter was allotted only for a period of one year. No extension of the allotment of the quarter was granted further by the respondents. 6. It is submitted that the respondent issued several notices during and after the service tenure of then Secretary Thakur Navin Nath Shahdeo, who was allotted the quarter. The Secretary of Adhyan Kendra was repeatedly directed by the respondents to pay the outstanding dues through notices dated 12.06.2004, 30.08.2013, 17.02.2014, 29.08.2014, 11.09.2014, 04.07.2020 15.07.2020 but he failed to pay the outstanding dues. However after the retirement of the allottee, the standard rent deduction was stopped from his salary. The ( 2025:JHHC:38755 ) 6 respondents cannot accept the standard rent of those quarters which are in illegal & unauthorised possession. The photocopies of notices dated 12.06.2004, 30.08.2013, 17.02.2014, 29.08.2014, 11.09.2014, 04.07.2020 and 15.07.2020 have been enclosed as annexure A (series). 7. It is submitted that several notices were issued by the respondents to the Secretary of the Adhyan Kendra on regular interval by demanding rent but due to continuous default in payment of rent and in continuation of the previous notices, the respondents issued a dues statement for an amount of Rs. 17,54,720/- upto 31.12.2020 and the total outstanding due rent payable by the petitioner is Rs. 32,55,241/- as on 31.08.2025. 8. It is submitted that despite several notices, the secretary of the Adhyan Kendra refused to pay the outstanding dues and remove himself from the premises and which constrained the respondents to seal the premises and take it under its control & possession owing to the continuous disregard of the notices issued by the respondents. 9. It is submitted that the demand for rent by the respondents is completely justified as the allotment was for a period of one year only and beyond that period market rent was imposed as per the terms & conditions of the allotment order. It is submitted that the petitioner was well informed of the terms & conditions of the allotment. The petitioner chose to violate the terms & conditions of the allotment order, thereby making itself liable to market rent. It is submitted that the letters dated 02.03.2021 (i.e.Annexure-7) & 22.11.2022 ( i.e. Annexure-8) have been rightfully issued due to default in paying the rent, occupying the ( 2025:JHHC:38755 ) 7 quarter illegally without any authorization and subletting the quarter in complete violation of the terms & conditions of the allotment order. 10. It is submitted that the respondent's Security Team has submitted its report dated 30.05.2022 that the quarter was occupied by one Shri Chetan Das who has sublet to a shopkeeper in Sector-2 Market, Dhurwa, who was utilizing it as a godown to store goods. Hence Writ Petition may be dismissed. 11. Perused the Records of this case and considered the submissions of both the sides. 12. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned counsel for the Respondents and from going through the record, it appears that the petitioner is son of Thakur Navin Nath Shahdeo who is said to be legal heir of the freedom fighter and the Landlord of Barkagarh Estate and Thakur Vishwanath Shahdeo was freedom fighter and actively participated in the war for freedom against the Rule of the then British Govt. in 1857. 13. It transpires that the petitioner has claimed several relief (s) but the pleading in several paragraphs is defective and proper pleading and prayer have not being made in this Writ Petition as such this Court had looked into the documents enclosed by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the H.E.C- Respondent in order to appreciate the fact of the case. 14. It is appears that several notices were sent by the respondents to then Secretary Thakur Navin Nath Shahdeo, Adhyan Kendra on regular interval and in default of payment the respondents have issued a dues statement for an amount of ( 2025:JHHC:38755 ) 8 Rs. 17,54,720/- upto 31.12.2020. As per the Respondents, the total outstanding due rent payable by the petitioner is Rs. 32,55,241/- as on 31.08.2025 but this is not subject matter of this Writ petition. 15. It transpires that the allotment of the quarter was cancelled through the letter dated 22.11.2022 (Annexure-8) as the petitioner did not pay the outstanding rent dues and had also sublet the quarter in violation of the terms & conditions of the allotment order. It is asserted by the Respondents that then security team had submitted its report dated 30.05.2022 by informing that the quarter was sublet to Chetan Das. The photocopy of security report dated 30.05.2022, is enclosed as annexure- C. 16. It transpires that the Respondent- H.E.C had allotted the quarter No. B-38/2 to Thakur Navin Nath Shahdeo on 28.08.1993(i.e. Annexure-1) which was to be used as Study Centre in the memory of Amar Sahid Thakur Vishwanath Shahdeo, Adhyan Kendra through its Secretary. The rental was fixed Rs. 55/- per month and electricity charges was fixed at Rs. 1/- per unit. 17. It appears from the salary slip dated 08.06.1998 (i.e. Annexure -2) that rent of Rs. 55/- per month was realized from the salary of Naveen Nath Shahdeo . 18. It appears from the some of the salary slips enclosed as Annexure -4 series to the Writ Petition that the rent of the quarter was realized Rs. 55/- per month from 03.06.1995 to 30.06.2016 from the salary of Thakur Naveen Nath Shahdeo and salary slips of Annexure- 4 series is lastly enclosed as for same of salary slips from October 2011 and December, 2011 show deduction of Rs. 55/- per month as H.R. recovery. ( 2025:JHHC:38755 ) 9 19. It further transpires from the Office order dated 30.01.2016 ( i.e. Annexure-5) that Thakur Navin Nath Shahdeo retired on 30.01.2016 from H.E.C on completion of the age 60 years from the service of H.E.C. from the post of Data Punch Operator and his date of joining was shown as 30.06.1995 and date of leavening H.E.C. is shown 30.01.2016. 20. It further appears that after retirement of Thakur Navin Nath Shahdeo, H.E.C. continued deduction of Rs. 55/- per month from the quarter No. B-38/2 and for which he filed the representation lastly on 09.03.2021 enclosed as Annexure- 5 series. 21. It further reveals from the counter affidavit filed by the Respondent that they have claimed to have sent the notice dated 12.06.2004, 30.03.2013, 17.02.2014, 29.08.2014, 11.09.2014, 04.07.2020 and 15.07.2020 upon the Thakur Navin Nath Shahdeo i.e. father of the petitioner who was the Secretary of Amar Sahid Thakur Vishwanath Shahdeo Adhyan Kendra as Annexure-A Series, however service of notices has not been shown upon Thakur Navin Nath Shahdeo by the Respondent except the notice dated 15.07.2020 by which it has been shown that the due upto 31.05.2020 is Rs.16,13,130.00/- and has enclosed the notices in their counter affidavit. 22. It further reveals that even vide Annexure-B i.e calculation of sum of Rs.32,55,240/- has been shown, and even the license fee, electricity charges, water charges have been shown. 23. It further appears that in response to query made by the Home Department, New Delhi, Management of H.E.C vide letter dated 27.03.2002 the H.E.C. had informed the Home Department that one Quarter has been allotted to Thakur Navin ( 2025:JHHC:38755 ) 10 Nath Shahdeo i.e Quarter No.B/38 in Sector–II and the Secretary, Amar Shahid Thakur Vishwanath Shahdeo , Adhyan Kendra) and the Management is giving free Water supply and Electricity Supply and even the statue of late Thakur Vishwanath Shahdeo has been installed at Golchakker of Sector -III and Thakur Navin Nath Shahdeo and three other persons had been given job. 24. Thus on the one hand, the Management is informing the Home Department, New Delhi Government of India on 27.03.2002 that it has allotted Quarter No. B-38 of Sector –II in the name of Amar Shahid Vishwanath Shahdeo Adhyan Kendra and has given facilities by supplying free Electricity and Water facility to Thakur Navin Nath Shahdeo and on the other hand they started charging penal rent and license fee from the Secretary of Amar Shahid Thakur Vishwanth Shahdeo, Adhyan Kendra. 25. It transpires from Annexure –A series that the license fee Rs. 3,46,224./- has been demanded from Thakur Navin Nath Shahdeo in the year 2014 although it was free allotment . 26. It further transpires that the Respondents have not issued any notice to the original allottee Navin Nath Shahdeo for payment of rent of quarter in question on the basis of prevailing market rent. 27. It further transpires from the Annexure–A containing the notice dated 30.08.2013 that a sum of Rs.4,53,531/- (Rs. Four lakh fifty three thousand, five hundred thirty one) is due and letter dated 17.02.2014 at page 19 of the counter affidavit reveals that license fee of Rs. 3,46,224/- has been charged upto 31.01.2014 and water supply charges is Rs. 7,817/- and Electricity charges is Rs. 18,138/- upto ( 2025:JHHC:38755 ) 11 30.11.2024 and total due amount is shown as Rs. 5,17,575/- whereas letter dated 11.09.2014 issued by SDGM/TA/Revenue of H.E.C. reveals that license fee of Rs 3,71,424/-, water supply charges is Rs. 8,177/- , electric charges upto 31.08.2014 is Rs. 18,138/- and DPS is Rs. 1,99,014/- and total due amount is Rs. 5,96,753/-. 28. Even from the perusal of letter dated 16.02.2021 (i.e. Annexure-6), it appears that License Fee @ Rs. 5940/- per month upto 31.03.2020 is Rs. 6,39,084/-, electric charges is Rs. 18,138/- ,Water Charges @ Rs 180 per month is Rs. 19,157/- and DPS is Rs. 10,24,881/- and total due amount is shown Rs. 17,54,720/- issued by Assistant Manager /Revenue of H.E.C. 29. Therefore, it is evident that the H.E.C is charging license fee @ Rs. 5940/ per month since the beginning and also charging electric charges with DPS and water charges, although it has been informed vide letter dated 27.03.2002 (Annexure -3) that it has been given free quarter and free electric and free water charges in the name of Study Center of Thakur Vishwanath Shahdeo . 30. It transpires that no notice was issued for charging quarter rent and charging electricity on market rent . 31. It is evident from the letter dated 02.03.2011 (i.e. Annexure -7) by demanding Rs. 17,54,720/- and cancellation of the quarter vide letter dated 22.11.2022 (i.e. Annexure -8) have been issued in complete violation of principles of natural justice. 32. It has been held in the case of Krishnadatt Awasthy Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and Others reported in (2024) SCC Online SC 493 at paragraph 36, 37 and 59 as follows:- ( 2025:JHHC:38755 ) 12 “Para 36:- From time immemorial, the importance of the audi alteram partem rule has been emphasized and re-emphasized in several judicial pronouncements. Two of them are set out to highlight the underlying rationale. Chief Justice Sabyasachi Mukharji in Charan Lal Sahu v Union of india, (1990) 1 SCC 613 felicitously described its importance:- "124. It is true that not giving notice, was not proper because principles of natural justice are fundamental in the constitutional set up of this country. No man or no man's right should be affected without an opportunity to ventilate his views. We are also conscious that justice is a psychological yearning, in which men seek acceptance of their viewpoint by having an opportunity of vindication of their viewpoint before the forum or the authority enjoined or obliged to take a decision affecting their right...." [Emphasis supplied] The above passage very much echoes what Lord Megarry said in John v. Rees, [1969] 2 All ER 274 at 309 FG:- "It may be that there are some who would decry the importance which the courts attach to the observance of the rules of natural justice. "When something is obvious," they may say, "why force everybody to go through the tiresome waste of time involved in framing charges and giving an opportunity to be heard? The result is obvious from the start." Those who take this view do not, I think, do themselves justice. As everybody who has anything to do with the law well knows, the path of the law is strewn with examples of open and shut cases which, somehow, were not; of unanswerable charges which, in the event, were completely answered; of inexplicable conduct which was fully explained; of fixed and unalterable determinations that, by discussion, suffered a change. Nor are those with any knowledge of human nature who pause to think for a moment likely to underestimate the feelings of resentment of those who find that a decision against them has been made without their being afforded any opportunity to influence the course of events." “Para 37:- This Court has held that the principles of natural justice reinforce the maxim that justice should not only be done but should be seen to be done. It has been held that non-observance of natural justice is itself prejudice to any individual. [S.L. Kapoor v. Jag Mohan, (1980) 4 SCC 379]. It has been held that the principle that no one can be inflicted ( 2025:JHHC:38755 ) 13 with an adverse order without being afforded a minimum opportunity of hearing was a constant lode star that has lit the judicial horizon of this country. [See Daffodills Pharmaceuticals Limited (supra)]. Even the Division Bench, in the impugned order, recognizes the fact that it was imperative to implead affected parties though ultimately it rested the case on certain exceptions which did not apply. This aspect has been elaborated hereinbelow.” “Para- 59 :- The principles deducible are as follows:- i) audi alteram partem as a facet of natural justice wherever applicable at the original stage ought to be strictly complied with. ii) In cases where the jurisdiction of the appellate/revisional/higher body is circumscribed like in Farid (supra) and in the case at hand, courts ought to reject the argument that the hearing before the appellate/revisional/higher body, has cured the breach of the audi alterm partem rule at the original stage. iii) Ordinarily, violation of the audi alteram partem rule, at the original stage, will not be curable in appeal/revision. However, if the jurisdiction of the appellate/revisional/higher body is comprehensive as found in Jayantilal Ratan Chand (supra) and Sangameswaran (supra), the Courts may be justified in concluding on the given facts, that the breach of the audi alteram partem rule, in the original stage, has stood redressed due to the scope and sweep of the higher proceeding. However, it will be purely within the discretionary power of the court depending on the facts of the case. This, in turn, will depend on the court being satisfied that the fair opportunity given by the higher body has ensured complete justice. Even in cases where the appellate jurisdiction/jurisdiction of the higher body is comprehensive as found in the provisions of the Jayantilal Ratan Chand (supra) and Sangameswaran (supra), there may be circumstances where the court may find that the violation does not stand cured. If, on a given set of facts, the court is of the opinion. that ample opportunity has not been forthcoming and complete justice has not been done, the court in its discretion, will be justified in concluding that the violation of the principles of natural justice does not stand cured. In exercising the discretion, the court will be justified in factoring in the circumstances as the one set out in para 18 of L.K. Ratna (supra).” ( 2025:JHHC:38755 ) 14 33. It is evident that even copy of the security report dated 30.05.2022 ( i.e. Annexure –C to the counter affidavit) is not served to the petitioner before issuing letter dated 22.11.2022 (i.e. Annexure-8). 34. Under the circumstances, letter dated 02.03.2021 (Annexure-7) and letter dated 22.11.2022 (Annexure -8) are set-aside and the Respondents are directed to issue order accordingly. 35. Thus, this Writ Petition No. W.P. (C) No. 436 of 2025 is allowed. (Sanjay Prasad, J.) Bibha/