Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
SCA/5081/2008 5/ 7 JUDGMENT
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 5081 of 2008
For
Approval and Signature:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE RAVI R.TRIPATHI
=========================================
1
Whether
Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?
2
To
be referred to the Reporter or not ?
3
Whether
their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ?
4
Whether
this case involves a substantial question of law as to the
interpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order
made thereunder ?
5
Whether
it is to be circulated to the civil judge ?
=========================================
TADVI
PRATAPKUMAR RAMESHCHAND-RA & 27 - Petitioner(s)
Versus
SARDAR
SAROVAR NARMADA NIGAM LIMITED & 2 - Respondent(s)
=========================================
Appearance :
MR
SHALIN N MEHTA for
Petitioner(s) : 1 - 28.
MR KAMAL TRIVEDI, ADVOCATE GENERAL
assisted by MS SEJAL K MANDAVIA for Respondent(s) : 1 -
3.
=========================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE RAVI R.TRIPATHI
Date
: 13/10/2010
ORAL
JUDGMENT
1. The
petitioners, 28 in number, are before this Court praying that:-
18. (A) Your
Lordships may be pleased to issue a writ of certiorari or any other
appropriate writ, order or direction, to quash and set aside the
order dated 25.2.2008 issued by the present respondent No.1 Sardar
Sarovar Narmada Nigam Limited;
2. Order
dated 25.02.2008 is produced at Annexure-M, page No.82. The order
says that, 30 local, educated, unemployed youth were given
training and on daily basis, they were asked to perform as Guide in
the year 2006 Tourism Year . The term of these persons, who
were engaged as Guides, was extended from time to time and by order
dated 05.12.2007, the period was extended up to 31.10.2007. Later on
it was extended up to 31.03.2008 and finally, the order in question
dated 25.02.2008 came to be passed whereby it was decided that no
remuneration will be paid to these Guides after 31.03.2008 and
automatically this scheme will come to an end.
2.1 It
was also provided in the order that since 01.04.2008, these trained
youth will be able to perform as Guide on they being issued a
necessary Identity Card by the Chief Engineer (Navagam Dam), Kevadia
Colony, by charging fees from the tourists. It was also provided in
the order that as mentioned in para-2, the exercise of issuing
Identity Card to the Guides and the standard on which they will be
charging fees from the tourists and necessary Rules /instructions for
implementing this scheme will be issued by the Chief Engineer
(Navagam Dam) Kevadia Colony in consultation with the acting Manager
(Tourism), Sardar Sarovar Narmada Nigam Ltd. ( SSNNL , for
short).
3. The
petitioners contended in the petition that they are the heirs of the
persons who had lost their lands in the Narmda Dam Project and thus,
they are the Project Affected Persons (PAPs). It is also the case of
the petitioners that the entire scheme was a well-thought and
well-worked out as is reflected in para-2 of the petition, which is
reproduced for ready perusal:-
2. The
present petitioners were appointed as Guides with a view to promote
tourism in Kevadia Colony near the dam site. The overflowing of the
Narmada Dam attracts thousand of tourists all year around. With a
view to provide information and guidance to such tourists, a need was
felt by the present respondent No.1 to appoint Guides. Pursuant to
the oral interview, the present petitioners were appointed as Guides.
Their interview was taken by a Selection Committee consisting of
7 persons; 3 officials from Gandhinagar and 4 officials from
Kevadia Colony. Before appointment, the petitioners were given
training. After completing of training, they started work as Guides
with effect from 19.7.2005. They were expected to work everyday from
8.00 a.m. To 8.00 p.m. They were paid Rs.150/- per
day…………..
(emphasis
supplied)
4. The
petition is contested by the respondents and various affidavits in
reply are filed. To start with, the first affidavit is filed by one
Shri Jwalant P.Trivedi, Assistant General Manager (Personnel) , SSNNL
affirmed on 02.05.2008. The contentions of the petition are
contested by saying in para-2 as under:-
(2) At the
outset, I say and submit that all the petitioners are daily wagers
and they have no right to post. Now only that, but they cannot
directly file petition before the Honourable Court without filing
labour reference. All the petitioners are the daily wagers, the
Labour Court has jurisdiction to entertain their grievances. This
Honourable Court may not exercise extra-ordinary jurisdiction under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India, in the case of the
petitioner.
4.1 So
far as claim about PAPs is concerned, the same is dealt with in
para-(4) of the affidavit, relevant part of which reads as under:-
(4) …..
The Honourable Court may peruse the certificates in which it is
mentioned that the land of the forefathers of the petitioner has been
acquired. When the land is acquired the land holder has obtained
compensation. Therefore, they cannot be said that they are land
losers or PAPs. The PAPs are the persons who have lost their
houses and land in submergence of Reservoir periphery and they are
required to be settled elsewhere. As the land of the petitioners
are outside the reservoir periphery not in submergence, situated in
down stream of dam. They are at par with the other persons whose
lands are required for project purposes i.e. colony, canal etc. Such
affected persons are many more in numbers throughout of the command
area of the Command.
(emphasis
supplied)
4.2 The
affidavit also deals with scope of providing them livelihood in
para-(5), relevant part of which reads as under:-
(5) ….
All the petitioners have given opportunity to earn by giving the
services based on their capacity and activeness for the work
entrusted to them. It means the office of the Nigam are ready to
take their services as per the policy and guidelines of SSNNL, then
by giving them approved license as Tourist Guide. Actually the
petitioners have no right to post and their services can be
terminated at any time looking to the necessity of work. However,
this offer is already given to the petitioners…..
(emphasis
supplied)
5. It
was contended by the petitioners that SSNNL is earning by collecting
fees from tourists and from that amount, not only the petitioners can
be kept in employment and can be paid but they will be earning profit
out of that. This aspect is replied by the respondents in para-(6)
of the affidavit affirmed on 24.08.2008, relevant part of which reads
as under:-
(6) I
further say and submit that the petitioners’ averment in the
Affidavit-in-Rejoinder regarding the collection of huge amount by
Nigam by way of tourist fees as purportedly declared on Doordarshan,
is erroneous and ill-founded and I do not admit the same. In this
behalf, I may state that from 20.7.2005, Nigam has started recovering
tourist fees which has been totaled to the tune of Rs.1,10,99,029/-
by June 2008, as against which Nigam has incurred expenses to the
tune of Rs.2,93,36,000/- for development of various amenities and
facilities like roads, sanitary facilities, gardens, parking areas,
general toilets, sitting platforms for the tourists, etc. around the
dam site.
6. Basically,
SSNNL is not a Tourism Corporation and therefore, concept of engaging
Tourist Guides is not appealing to this Court as it is rightly
mentioned in the affidavit in reply by the respondents that it was in
the year 2006 which was declared as Tourism Year and taking into
consideration the fact that number of people visit dam site as
‘tourist spot’ and as a drive to cultivate awareness about the
project and public opinion in favour of the project by providing
exact information about the project and its various facets that the
aforesaid scheme was thought of and was implemented. By any means
this cannot be a perennial feature and therefore, action of the
respondents of not continuing the petitioners any more cannot be
found fault with. The petitioners are otherwise also benefited by
getting training and by getting experience of work as Tourist Guides.
6.1 A
judicial notice can be taken of the fact that the dam site is going
to be a point of attraction to the people not only of the State but
even to outside visitors. Besides, on educational tours being
conducted to the site, the petitioners can avail of the offer made by
the order impugned. At the same time, the petitioners can also
appeal to the good-sense of the respondents and can prove their
utility, which may make the respondents to give a second thought to
the order impugned and can either revive or renew the scheme with
modified application of the same wherein again the petitioners will
be having a chance to get the same work.
7. With
the aforesaid observations, the petition is dismissed. Rule is
discharged. Interim relief granted earlier is vacated. No costs.
The
amount deposited by the respondents to be returned to the respondents
by an Account Payee Cheque . The said cheque be issued on or
before 25.10.2010.
8. Learned
Advocate General states that the respondents herein will withdraw the
LPA filed by them.
(Ravi
R.Tripathi, J.)
*Shitole
Top