HARISH ARORA Vs. DISTRICT MAGISTRATE SHAHDOL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) INVOKING the extra-ordinary jurisdiction of this Court the petitioner has prayed for issue of writ of Certiorari for quashment of orders contained in Annexures P-13 to P-17.

(2.) THE facts as have been unfolded are that the petitioner is engaged in the business of Coal Trading and Coal Transportation under valid delivery orders issued by the authorities of the South Eastern Coalfields Limited, Bilaspur. It is putforth that he deals in his own name and transports coals for various undertakings under valid delivery orders to various far off places throughout India. Copies of authority for Transport of coal by Shipra Industries, Shivam Coal Brigget Udoy, Tripti Industries and Adhunik Brigget Industry have been brought on record as Annexures P-3 to P-6. For transporting Transit Passes are issued by the Mining Officer, Shahdol. As per arrangement the coal is to be lifted from the Coal Mines thereafter to be transported to various far off places. It is setforth in the petition that due to shortage of transport facilities like trucks the petitioner has to make arrangement for temporary storage and dumping of the coal before it reaches its proper destination. There are number of coal mines near Burhar Town and approximately 1000 tonnes of coal are lifted from various coalfields everyday. For lifting of coal the trucks are required to wait in queue for several days at times. In order to ensure timely lifting of coal the petitioner has engaged number of dumpers for short distance transport of coal. The petitioner has 3,282 hectare area of plot in village Piparia Patwari Halka No. 29, Kotma, District Shahdol which is situated at a distance of 35 kms. away from Burhar. There is no coalmine around this plot nor is there any possibility of surface coalmining around the said area. The Sone river belt where surface coal mining is apprehended is nearly 45 kms. away from this plot. As pleaded by the petitioner for smooth and convenient running of his coal trading and transportation business he has to temporarily dump and store the coal on this plot before trucks for their transportation to proper destination could be arranged. It is averred that the Government of India, Ministry of Coal for the purpose of control and regulation of sale of coal from different mines/collieries has framed Colliery Control Order. There arc provisions for allotment of coal. The person who is allotted coal is required to maintain a record containing particulars i. e. quantity of coal allotted of each grade and size, quantity consumed of each grade and size and the purpose for which it is consumed. Thus there are various guidelines to control the same. While the petitioner was smoothly carrying his trading the respondent No. 1 under certain apprehension started issuing prohibitory orders under Section 144 of Code of Criminal Procedure for imposing restrictions on dumping, storage and transport of the coal. As it resulted in hardship to genuine and legal coal traders they represented to the State Government, and eventually, a resolution was brought as contained in Annexure P-11 on 21-11-1995 which stipulates that instead of passing prohibitory orders, flying squad may be constituted to check illegal trade in coal. In spite of aforesaid resolution the prohibitory orders were continued to be passed by the respondent No. 1. Being dissatisfied the petitioner approached this Court assailing the aforesaid prohibitory orders in W. P. No. 670/96. This Court by order dated 12-3-96 directed for stay of operation of impugned prohibitory orders. As life of prohibitory order which was stayed by this Court was for two months, the District Magistrate continued to pass the same orders. The said orders have been brought on record as Annexures P-13 to P-17 and prayer has been made for quashment of the same. It is averred in the writ petition that provision of Section 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is for meeting the emergency Situation and law and order, therefore, permanent or semi-permanent orders cannot be passed to affect the rights of a citizen. That apart various other grounds have been taken showing the bonafides of the petitioner.

(3.) I have heard Mr. P. N. Pathak, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Mr. Ashok Agrawal learned Panel Lawyer for the State. It is submitted by Mr. Pathak that the orders passed vide Annexures P-13 to P-17 do clearly exposit that the same are passed in stereotyped manner without applying his mind. It is further submission that provision enshrined under Section 144 of Cr. P. C. is not to be taken recourse to in a factual matrix of this nature. In support of his contention he has placed reliance on the decision rendered in the case of Acharya Jagdishwaranand Avadhuta etc. Vs. Commissioner of Police, Calcutta and another, AIR 1984 SC 51. Resisting the aforesaid submission Mr. Ashok Agrawal, learned Panel Lawyer, has submitted that as the theft in coal and law and order situation required to be controlled the District Magistrate has no option but to issue orders which have been issued. It is also urged by him that unless the order of the present nature is passed there will be chaos in the area.