IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
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
Versus
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
2
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
3
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
permitted.
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)
