http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 1  

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.