# Oil Extration v. State of M.P., (19970

- **Citation:** (2006) 1 ILRA 107
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2006-01-13
- **Bench:** M.K. Mittal
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/oil-extration-v-state-of-m-p-19970-40639
- **Pages:** 4

## Headnote

Code of Criminal Procedure-Section-482Quashing of Summoning order-offence
under Section 630 of the Company Actapplicant while in service of company
108 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2006
was allotted the flat service terminated
on 19.2.02 in spits of notice to-failed to
vacate hence on complaint case after
recording the statement under Section
200 and 202-summoning orders-heldproper application rejected.

Held: Para 12

Therefore this legal position shows that
if the services of the employee or the
officer have been terminated he is liable
to vacate the premises of the company
and if he fails to do so he can be
prosecuted under Section 630 of the
Companies Act.
Case law discussed:
1999 (1) SCC-119
1987 (4) SCC-361
1995 (Crl.) SCC-591
2005 (Crl.) SCC-993

## Text

1 All] Bishan Singh V. State of U.P. and another
107
to the general legal limitations applicable
and binding the manner of the future
exercise of administrative power in a
particular case. It follows that the concept
of legitimate expectation is "not the key
which unlocks the treasury of natural
justice and it ought not to unlock the gates
which shuts the Court out of review on the
merits", particularly when the element of
speculation and uncertaintyh is inherent
in that very concept."
26. This doctrine was reiterated in M.P.
Oil Extration v. State of M.P., (19970
7 SCC 592: (1997 AIR SCW 4104) in
which it was also laid down that
though the doctrine of "Legitimate
Expectation"
is
essentially
procedural in character and assures
fair play in administrative action, it
may, in a given situation, be enforced
as a substantive right.

9. In the case in hand, it is not the
case of the petitioner, that her deputation
has been cancelled on account of some
misconduct
or
allegations
attaching
stigma to her service. It appears that the
State Government took a decision not to
make such deputations vide its order date
14th July 2005, and following the same the
deputation of the petitioner has been
cancelled by order dated 21st July 2005. In
these circumstances, I do not find any
reason to interfere with the order
impugned in the present writ petition.

10. Lastly, the learned counsel for
the petitioner, however, submits that as a
result of cancellation of her deputation
she could not have joined her Parent
Department and now after such a long
time, the parent Department is likely not
to allow her to join her services and
therefore, this Hon'ble Court may be
pleased to protect her interest to the extent
that the Parent Department may allow her
to join her services.

11. This court hope and trust if the
petitioner submits her joining report
within a period of 6 weeks along with the
certified copy of his order, the Parent
Department would allow her to join her
services. However, with respect to the
past period for which the salary to the
petitioner has not been paid, if any
representation is made by the petitioner to
the competent authority, it shall be
considered and appropriate speaking order
in accordance with law shall be passed by
the competent authority within a period of
1 month from the date the representation
is made by the petitioner.

With these observations the writ
petition is dismissed.
Petition dismissed.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 13.01.2006

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE M.K. MITTAL, J.

Criminal Misc. Application No. 308 o 2006

Bishan Singh

...Applicant
Versus
State of U.P. & another ...Opposite party

Counsel for the Applicant:
Sri Sanjay Srivastava

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
Sri Ramesh Sinha
A.G.A.

Code of Criminal Procedure-Section-482Quashing of Summoning order-offence
under Section 630 of the Company Actapplicant while in service of company
108 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2006
was allotted the flat service terminated
on 19.2.02 in spits of notice to-failed to
vacate hence on complaint case after
recording the statement under Section
200 and 202-summoning orders-heldproper application rejected.

Held: Para 12

Therefore this legal position shows that
if the services of the employee or the
officer have been terminated he is liable
to vacate the premises of the company
and if he fails to do so he can be
prosecuted under Section 630 of the
Companies Act.
Case law discussed:
1999 (1) SCC-119
1987 (4) SCC-361
1995 (Crl.) SCC-591
2005 (Crl.) SCC-993

(Delivered by Hon'ble M.K. Mittal, J.)

1. Heard Sri Sanjay Srivastava,
learned counsel for the applicant, Sri
Ramesh Sinha, learned counsel for the
opposite party no. 2, learned A.G.A. and
perused the record.

2. Application has been filed under
Section
482
Cr.P.C.
to quash the
proceedings of complaint case no. 755 of
2004
(M/S
Modi
Industries
(Modi
Vanaspati Manufacturing Company Unit)
Versus Bishan Singh, pending in the
Court
of
Special
Chief
Judicial
Magistrate, Meerut under Section 630 of
the Companies Act.

3. Brief facts of the case are that
applicant was employed in the company
of the opposite party no.2 and was also
allotted a quarter no. B-1/17 Mutanipura,
Modinagar
in
connection
with
his
employment in the Company. However
the services of the applicant were
terminated on 19.2.2002 and the applicant
was required by the opposite party no. 2
to vacate the quarter but he did not do so
and than the complaint was filed under
Section 630 Companies Act and after
examining the complainant and the
witnesses under Section 200/202 Cr.P.C.
learned Magistrate finding prima facie
case against the applicant directed to
summon the applicant vide order dated
24.7.2004.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant
has contended that the applicant was
working in the company in the capacity of
Officer Instrument after his promotion on
16.8.1999.
But
his
services
were
terminated on 19.9.2002 without giving
any show cause notice and the termination
matter
is
pending
before
Labour
Commissioner,
Ghaziabad.
Learned
counsel for the applicant has further
contended that opposite party no.2 is
neither the owner of the property nor
lessee of the property and has no right to
file complaint under Section 630 of
Companies Act. He has further contended
that the allegations as made disclose a
dispute of Civil nature and the learned
Magistrate has erred in summoning the
applicant.

5. Against it learned counsel for the
opposite party and the learned A.G.A.
have contended that the quarter was given
to the applicant in connection with his
employment and when the services were
terminated he was required to vacate and
if he does not vacate he is criminally
liable
under
Section
630
of
the
Companies Act.
They
have further
contended that the learned Magistrate has
rightly summoned the applicant and that
the present application is misconceived
and is liable to be dismissed.
1 All] Bishan Singh V. State of U.P. and another
109

6. The relevant portion of Section
630 of the Companies Act reads as
follows:
Section 630:- Penalty for wrongful
withholding of property:-

(1) If any officer or employee of a
company-
(a) wrongfully obtains possession of any
property of a company; or
(b) having any such property in his
possession, wrongfully withholds it or
knowingly applies it to purposes other
than those expressed or directed in the
articles and authorized by this act;

he shall, on the complaint of the
company or any creditor or contributory
thereof, be punishable with fine which
may extend to one thousand rupees.
(2) The Court trying the offence may
also order such officer or employee to
deliver up or refund, within a time to be
fixed by the Court any such property
wrongfully
obtained
or
wrongfully
withheld or knowingly misapplied, or in
default, to suffer imprisonment for a term
which may extend to two years.

7. This section shows that if any
officer or employee of the company who
is in possession of the property of the
company wrongfully withholds it he shall
be liable to be prosecuted on the basis of
the complaint that may be filed by the
company. In the instant case, the services
of the applicant were terminated in the
year 2002 and therefore he does not have
any right to continue in possession over
the property of the company even if his
case is pending before the Labour
Commissioner. Learned Counsel for the
applicant also could not show as to who is
owner of this property if the company is
not the owner of this property.

8. Learned counsel for the applicant
has contended that the dispute is of civil
nature and has cited the case of Jagdish
Chandra Nijhawan Vs. S.K. Saraf
(1999) 1 SCC 119. In that case the
appellant was put in possession of the flat
pursuant to agreement dated 29.4.1983
and some terms and conditions were laid
down and it was held by the Hon'ble
Apex Court that accused was granted rent
free accommodation as part of conditions
of employment contained in an agreement
containing clauses stipulating employees
right to retain flat in certain circumstances
such as termination within a particular
period. In that matter, the learned
Magistrate had discharged the accused on
the ground that it was a dispute of civil
nature and that finding was confirmed by
the Hon'ble Apex Court. In the present
case the facts are different and there is no
agreement between the parties as to what
would happen in case of termination of
the services, therefore, this ruling does not
help the applicant.

9. Learned counsel for the opposite
party has cited the case of Baldev
Krishna Sahi Vs. Shipping Corporation
of India Limited and another (1987) 4
SCC 361, where it has been held that the
term officer or employee of a company
applies not only to existing officers or
employees but also to past officers or
employees if such officer or employees
either (a) wrongfully obtains possession
of any property, or (b) having obtained
such property during the course of his
employment, withholds the same after the
termination of his employment. It is the
wrongful withholding of such property,
meaning the property of the company
after termination of the employment,
which is an offence under Section 630
(1)(b) of the Act.
110 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2006

10. Learned counsel for the opposite
party has also cited the case of Sunita
Bhagat (Mrs.) and others 1995 SCC
(Crl) 591 where it has been held that once
the right of the employee or the officer to
retain the possession of the property,
either on account of termination of
services, retirement, resignation or death,
gets
extinguished, they (persons in
occupation) are under an obligation to
return the property back to the company
and on their failure to do so, they render
themselves liable to be deal with under
Section 630 of the Act for retrieval liable
to be deals with under Section 630 of the
Act for retrieval of the possession of the
property.

11. Learned counsel for the opposite
party has also cited a recent case of
Shubh
Shanti
Services
Ltd.
Vs.
Manjula S. Agarwalla 2005 SCC (Cri)
993. In that matter a civil suit was
pending between the employee and the
company and the High Court had directed
the company not to dispossess the legal
representative of the deceased employee,
of the flat, allotted to the deceased, except
by due process of law. It has been held by
the Hon'ble Apex Court that the remedy
available to the company under Section
630 was nonetheless a proceedings taken
in due process of law and it was further
held that the criminal proceedings were
not barred by interim order in civil
proceedings.

12. Therefore this legal position
shows that if the services of the employee
or the officer have been terminated he is
liable to vacate the premises of the
company and if he fails to do so he can be
prosecuted under Section 630 of the
Companies Act.

13. In the circumstances, I do not
find any illegality in the summoning order
and there is no legal ground to quash the
proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
Application is devoid of merits and is
liable to be dismissed.

14. Application is hereby dismissed.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 21.11.2005

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE ARUN TANDON, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 71261 of 2005

Brijesh Kumar Tripathi
...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. and others ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Shesh Kumar
Sri Ashok Gupta

Counsel for the Respondents:
S.C.

(A) U.P. Govt. Servant (Discipline &
Appeal) Rules, 1999-rule 7 readwith
Constitution of India Art. 226-alternative
remedy-principle
of
natural
justice
violated-alternative
remedy
is
no
absolute bar.

Held: Para 13

Since this Court has come to the
conclusion that the impugned order has
been passed in manifest violation of
statutory
rules
and
in
violation
of
principles of natural justice as have been
stated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
the case of Ministry of Finance and
another (Supra), it would not be fair to
insist upon the petitioner to avail the
statutory alternative remedy.
AIR 1998 SC-853