Tek Chand Thakur And Another vs. State Of Hp And Others

Held

The High Court held that the appellants, as aggrieved persons, have the locus standi to file and maintain the appeals, even though they were not parties to the original writ petition. The Court found that the impugned order dated June 19, 2019, which decided the priority of claims in favour of the Excise Department or any other party, was not sustainable. This was because the priority of claims was not the subject matter of the main writ petition (CWP No. 3 of 2006), and therefore, could not have been adjudicated in that petition, nor in an application filed for the release of sale proceeds by the Liquidator, especially after the writ petition was dismissed with an observation that such an issue was not under adjudication. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside. The application for the release of sale proceeds in favour of the Federation was allowed, with directions for the Registry to release the amount to the Federation under liquidation. All claimants, including the appellants, the EPF Organization, the Excise Department, and the KCC Bank, were directed to prefer their claims before the Liquidator by January 15, 2025. The Liquidator is to adjudicate and decide these claims in accordance with the law, and the amount shall be released 90 days after the passing of the reasoned order.

Facts

These appeals concern the distribution of sale proceeds from the assets of the District Cooperative Marketing and Consumer Federation Limited (Federation), which is under liquidation. The impugned order dated June 19, 2019, passed by a learned Single Judge, granted the State/Excise Department a preferential right to recover its dues from these sale proceeds. The appellants, employees of the Federation claiming retiral benefits and the Employees' Provident Fund Organization (EPF Organization) claiming statutory dues, were not parties to the original writ petition (CWP No. 3 of 2006) or related proceedings. They contend that the order was passed without considering their claims, thereby prejudicing their legal rights to recover their respective dues from the sale proceeds. The High Court granted them leave to appeal.

Key Issues

1. Whether the appellants, not being parties to the original writ petition (CWP No. 3 of 2006) or related proceedings, have the locus standi to file appeals against the order dated June 19, 2019, which decided the priority of claims over sale proceeds of the Federation's assets? - Appellants argued they are 'aggrieved persons' with a right to appeal as their claims were not adjudicated and the impugned order prejudiced their legal rights. - Revenue/State argued that since the appellants were not parties to the original writ petition, they could not appeal the order. 2. Whether the learned Single Judge erred in adjudicating the priority of claims over the sale proceeds of the Federation's assets in an application filed for the release of funds, when the original writ petition explicitly stated that such priority was not under adjudication? - Appellants argued that the priority of claims was not a subject matter of CWP No. 3 of 2006, and therefore, could not be adjudicated in an application for release of funds, especially after the writ petition was dismissed with an observation that the issue was not adjudicated. - Revenue/State argued that the Excise Department had a first charge under Section 16(B) of the GST Act.