SANJEEV NATH BHASKAR Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri G. S. Chaturvedi Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri Samit Gopal, Advocate for the applicants and the learned A.G. A. for the opposite party No. 1.

(2.) Notice to opposite party No. 2 was served but no counter affidavit has been filed and no counsel has put his appearance on behalf of contesting opposite party.

(3.) Prayer in this application is for quashing of the charge sheet annexure No. 2 and the order dated 15-3-1999 passed by A.C.J.M. Mahroni. Facts of the case is, mining lease located at Pardhankuan in Pargana Sanpur District Jhansi (now Lalitpur) Tehsil Mahroni bearing cadestral survey No. 760 having an area 47.24 acres was sanctioned to Ishwar Industries Ltd. for a period of 20 years with effect from 1-5-1964 for carrying out mining work. Renewal of lease was applied on 11-4-1983, which was rejected by the State Government, order of rejection was challenged before Delhi High Court and interim order was passed in favour of leasee on 8th August, 1988 by a Division Bench in pursuant thereof the applicants are continuing with the mining work. F.I.R. was lodged against the applicants at case No. 140 of 1998 under Section 379 I.P.C., Section 26 Forest (Conservation Act) 1980 and Section 52/53 of the Mines Act 1952. Writ petition No. 3862 of 1998 was filed in this Court for quashing of FIR and stay of arrest of the applicants, a Division Bench of this Court, vide order dated 7-9-1998 granted time to the State Government and the S.S.P. to file counter affidavit and also stayed the arrest of the applicants. Before passing interim order, the Court had perused lease deed and it was clearly stated in the order that the petitioners (applicants) are permitted to use the area for carrying out mining operation and were permited to cut down the trees etc. for which the applicants were entitled to pay compensation specified by the Collector of the District as per the terms of lease deed. The said compensation will be treated as an implied consent, copy of the interim order has been annexed as annexure No. 4 to the affidavit. It has been stated in paragraph 5 of the affidavit that State has not filed any counter affidavit till date which is not disputed. Charge sheet has been filed against the applicants and the C.J.M. summoned the applicants vide order dated 15-3-1999, which is sought to be quashed.