P.P.BHATT, J. - (1.) THE present petition has been filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India for quashing and setting aside the order dated 19.12.2012 passed by the learned Principal District Judge, Jamshedpur in Civil Misc. Petition No. 35/2012 whereby the petition filed under Section 24 C.P.C. has been disposed of without granting relief(s) as sought for by the petitioner.
(2.) THE brief facts and the case is that: - (i) The petitioner was a Pilot under Civil Aviation Department, Government of India and on requisition his service was placed to TISCO for flying aircraft of TATA Iron and Steel Company. The petitioner's service was terminated by letter dated 25.09.2006 bearing No. -AOC/HRS/0566/06 alleging that he was responsible for the accident of the aircraft dated 26.04.2006. (ii) That being aggrieved by the order dated 25.09.2006 the petitioner instituted a Title Suit No. 90 of 2006 before the learned Sub -Judge -I, Jamshedpur praying the following relief(s): (a) For a decree for declaration that the termination of the plaintiff is illegal, arbitrary and mala fide and is liable to be set aside and the letter dated 25.9.06 cannot be given effect to. (b) For that the plaintiff is entitled to enjoy all the emoluments attached to his salary including his quarter till the disposal of this suit. (c ) For the cost of this suit. (d) For any other relief or reliefs to which the plaintiff may be found entitled under the law and equity. (iii) That the respondents also filed a complaint case being C1 Case No. 139 of 2006 on 29.11.2006 under Section 630 of the Companies Act and the copy of the said complaint is also annexed to this petition vide Annexure -2. The prayer clauses of the said complaint are as follows: - (a) That the cognizance may please be taken and process may please be issued against the Accused according to law for prosecution u/s 630 of the Companies Act. (b) The accused may be ordered to deliver the vacant possession of the premises allotted to him within the period specified by Your Honour and be punished according to law for such offence.
(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner submitted that; (i) the petitioner has challenged the termination order passed in Title Suit No. 90 of 2006 by the respondent authorities. The prayer clause (b) of the petition, it is prayed that the petitioner is entitled to enjoy all the emoluments attached to his salary including his quarter till the disposal of this suit and on the other hand, in the complaint case filed by the respondent i.e. C -1 Case No. 139 of 2006, the prayer was made to the effect that the accused may be ordered to deliver the vacant possession of the premises allotted to him within the period specified by the Court and also for inflicting the punishment according to law for such offence . (ii) That after filing of C -1 Case No. 139 of 2006 , W.P.(Cr.) was moved by the respondents. The petitioner was not made party in WP(Cr.) No. 292 of 2012 (Annexure -3) and the said order was passed behind the back of the petitioner and the petitioner was not given any opportunity of hearing before giving the direction as contained in order dated 23.11.12 passed in the aforesaid writ petition. In the said order dated 23.11.12, a Coordinate Bench of this Court directed that the trial court shall comply with the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge in Cr. Revision No. 104 of 2012 and the accused shall co -operate in the trial so that the trial is expeditiously concluded. Learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn my attention that the said order was passed without giving any opportunity of being heard to the petitioner as it was ex parte order. The cause title of the order indicates that the matter was represented by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel representing the State Government which is a formal party. The necessary party i.e. present petitioner was not called upon or given any opportunity before passing of the order. Thus in the said proceeding opportunity was not given at any point of time before such order was passed. (iii) By referring Annexure -4 i.e. Civil Misc. Petition No. 35/12, filed before the learned Principal District Judge, Jamshedpur, it is pointed out that the petitioner has tried to justify his case before the learned Principal District Judge, Jamshedpur by showing valid reason for transfer of title suit in a court where the complaint Case No. 139/2006 is pending. In the said application, the petitioner also pointed out about the subject matter of the title suit vis -a -vis the subject matter of the complaint case filed under Section 630 of the Companies Act and the prayer made with regard to retention of quarters and payment of all the emoluments attached to his post. By referring to the order dated 19.12.12 (Annexure -5 to this petition), it is submitted that the learned court below has not assigned any reason whatsoever while deciding the application filed by the petitioner under Section 24 of the CPC and passed the order that the complaint case No. 139 of 2006 is relates to the offence committed u/s 630 of the Companies Act and it is exclusively triable by the court of Special Judge, Economic Offences and the court of Civil Judge (Sr. Division) -I Jamshedpur, is running court, therefore , it is better to the petitioner to approach both the courts for quick disposal of the cases. (iv) The averments made in the present petition are not denied by the respondent authorities by filing any counter affidavit and more so, specifically paras 12, 17, 18 and 20 of this petition are also not replied or controverted by the respondent authorities by way of filing any affidavit. (v) The interlocutory application being I.A. No. 5335 of 2014 has been filed by the petitioner seeking indulgence of this Court to bring certain important facts and grounds to the notice of this Court so that it can be considered by the Hon'ble Court in its proper perspective as the same could not be placed before this Hon'be court at the time of hearing on 22.8.2014. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that the respondents are not inclined to file any counter affidavit in respect of the claim made by the petitioner as the question of law, which is involved in the present proceeding has already been highlighted. Learned counsel for the respondents has referred the interlocutory application, which is filed basically for the purpose of vacating the order of stay, granted in favour of the petitioner. Learned counsel for the respondents has also referred to and relied upon the decision rendered in the case of Ganesh Roy Vs. State of Jharkhand, 2004 2 JCR 443 and submitted that both the proceedings in question are different and distinct in nature. Therefore the application, filed under Section 24 CPC before the learned Principal District Judge, Jamshedpur was dismissed. According to the learned counsel for the respondents, the learned court below has rightly and properly disposed of Civil Misc. Petition No. 35/2012. Learned counsel for the respondents also put emphasis and drew attention upon the application filed under Section 630 of the Companies Act and submitted that the proceedings are summary in nature and the learned court below was about to pass the order. At present, the petitioner is prolonging the said proceedings by filing an application under Section 24 CPC as well as the petition filed before this Court and therefore, this petition may not be entertained and allowed. Learned counsel for the respondents by filing rejoinder to I.A. No. 5335/2014, submitted that the said interlocutory application is not maintainable in eyes of law as this Court after hearing the parties dictated the order.;