I.D.I.O. Construction And … vs State Of Bihar & Ors. on 30 September, 2011

Patna High Court – Orders
I.D.I.O. Construction And … vs State Of Bihar & Ors. on 30 September, 2011
                                MJC No 1826 of 2010
             IDIO Construction and Industry (India) Ltd, its registered office at
             Shristhi, 5, D/21, North Sri Krishnapuri, Boring Road, Patna -
             800 013 through Krishna Nand Singh, CEO -cum- Director,
             Resident of Mohalla - Sri Krishna Nagar, Plot No 176, Road No 23,
             P S - Buddha Colony, District - Patna                   -       Petitioner
         1    The State of Bihar through Sri Phul Singh, at present posted as
              Commissioner -cum- Secretary, Mines Department, Government of Bihar,
              New Secretariate, Bihar, Patna
         2    Sri Ram Suchit Sharma, at present posted as Under Secretary, Department of
              Mines and Geology, Government of Bihar, New Secretariat, Patna
         3    Dr Manish Kumar, at present posted as District Magistrate, Lakhisarai
         4    Sri Shakeel Ahmad, at present posted as District Mining Officer (DMO),
              Lakhisarai                                             -Opposite parties

5 30.09.2011 This Court, by judgment dated 25.03.2010 as passed in

CWJC No 16998 of 2008, quashed the order of the State Government as

affirmed by the Central Government terminating prematurely the mining

lease of the petitioner. Though, by virtue of the judgment of this Court,

petitioner’s working of the mining lease ought to have been restored

immediately. It was not done. This contempt application was then filed

on 26.04.2010 with notice to the respondents. It appears, they chose to

prefer a Letters Patent Appeal being LPA No 798 of 2010 which was also

taken up and dismissed in limine by judgment and order dated 20.06.2011

affirming the order of this Court. During pendency of the Letters Patent

Appeal, this contempt proceeding was adjourned awaiting the results

thereof. The judgment of this Court had been stayed by the Division

Bench but as a consequence of dismissal of the appeal, the stay was

automatically vacated still the petitioner was not allowed to work his

lease. It must be remembered that apart from respect for judgment of this

Court, by this inaction, the respondents were deliberately causing loss to
the petitioner and to the State exchequer. This Court wonders for whose

benefit this was being done. When this matter was taken up on

14.09.2011, this Court noticed the facts and asked the opposite parties to

file their show cause. Regrettably, when the matter was listed yesterday,

no show cause was filed. Today, a show cause has been filed.

In the show cause, there are two defence taken for not

complying the order of this Court. Firstly, it is stated that the application

for transit permit for despatch of minerals is not in accordance with the

Rules. Petitioner rightly submits that this was never disclosed to him as to

what was wrong with his application. The District Magistrate -cum-

Collector, Lakhisarai, who is personally present in the Court, accepts that

there had been no communication to the petitioner in this regard. Thus, it

is evident that it is a false pretence only to harass the petitioner. The

second ground taken is that there is some other person also who has

applied for transit permit claiming to be Managing Director and, as such,

the Collector does not know to whom the transit permit has to be issued.

As in the first so here, the Collector never queried from the petitioner in

this regard but chose to sit over it. I must notice that in the show cause

itself, the Collector has annexed a Division Bench order of this Court

wherein the other party claiming had gone to the Division Bench claiming

that he was the Managing Director. This Court refused to entertain the

application or given any finding and relegated him to authorities under the

Indian Companies Act. One wonders that if the Collector was in know of

the order of this Court then where was there any dispute left. There was

no dispute nor any confusion except some confusion created in his own
mind. For whose good, one does not know.

Thus, I have no option but to hold that the excuses being

given by the Collector are lame excuses and in fact knowing the order of

this Court and of the Division Bench, he has deliberately avoided to

implement the same.

In view of the aforesaid facts, ordinarily this Court would

have held the District Magistrate guilty in contempt and take suitable

action for punishing him.

The District Magistrate, who is personally present, tenders

unqualified apology and submits that within a day or two, he would issue

to the petitioner the necessary transit permits and henceforth would not

interfere with the activities of the petitioner except where, by law, he is so


Upon this undertaking and keeping in view the career of the

learned District Magistrate, I accept his apology and direct him to execute

the undertaking as given to this Court today.

These proceedings are disposed of accordingly.

M.E.H./                            (Navaniti Prasad Singh)

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes:

<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

* Copy This Password *

* Type Or Paste Password Here *