PETITIONER: STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA LTD.(SUCCESSOR TO HINDUSTAN STEEL L Vs. RESPONDENT: LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATIONOF INDIA & ORS. DATE OF JUDGMENT: 09/05/1997 BENCH: K. RAMASWAMY, D.P. WADHWA ACT: HEADNOTE: JUDGMENT:
O R D E R
This special leave petition has been filed against the
order of the High Court of Delhi, made on 13.3.1997 in C.W.
No. 1085/97.
The predecessor of the petitioner-Company had taken on
rent the disputed premises, fro the Life Insurance
Corporation, on 4th floor of Jeevan Deep Building,
Parliament Street, New Delhi. Since the petitioner had not
vacated the premises, action was taken eviction under the
Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act.
The petitioner challenged the action in the High Court
contending that this Court has issued directions in I.A.
Nos. 4 and 4 of 1992 in Civil Appeal Nos. 2058-59/88 to
constitute a High-power Committee to resolve the disputes
between the Public Sector Undertaking and the Government of
India of the concerned Ministry, 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 the High-power Committee should have
been constituted and decided the matter. We find no force in
the contention.
The object of issuing direction in those matters was to
decide the fiscal disputes in case of major policy matter to
save the public money and court valuable time, and disputes
could amicably be settled between the Public Sector
Undertaking and the Government of India or the State
Government. 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 otherwise duty and time is of very important
nature. Under these circumstances, the High Court has not
committed any error warranting interference.
The special leave petition is accordingly dismissed.