EASTERN COALFIELDS LIMITED Vs. AJAY GLASS WORKS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This mandamus appeal at the instance of the appellants who were respondent Nos. 1 to 3 is against the order dated 23rd August, 2005 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in connection with W. P. No. 12466 (W) of 2004.

(2.) The said writ application was brought by the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 against the present appellants and the proforma-respondent Nos.4 and 5 with prayer for issuing writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the concerned respondents authorities to release 525 metric tonnes of Grade-B steam coal allegedly seized from the petitioners on 20th January, 1987 in connection with Ranigunj Police Station Case No. 11 dated 20.1.1987. The writ petitioners also prayed for some other relief.

(3.) The facts giving rise to filing of the said writ application are as follows: - That on 20.1.1987, on the basis of a complaint lodged before the respondent No.5, two trucks carrying coal were apprehended and consequently, a search was conducted jointly by the respondent No.5 and CISF in the premises of the petitioner No. 1 which is a partnership firm engaged in manufacturing glass. The petitioner No. 2 is one of the partners of the said firm and the petitioner No. 3 is a limited Company and carries on business of manufacturing and sale of glass and glassware. At the time of raid on 20.1.1987, according to the petitioners, CISF along with the respondent No. 5 seized 544 MT of Grade-B steam coal from the premises of the petitioner No. 1 on the allegation that no valid paper could be produced for possession of the said amount of coal. Though 544 MT of coal were seized, the petitioners complained that in the seizure list, the amount of 525 MT was shown as the weight of the seized coal. On the basis of the same, a criminal case being Ranigunj Police Station Case No. 11 dated 20.1.1987 under Sections 379/411 of Indian Penal Code read with Sections 165A/147/337/427/353/506 of Indian Penal Code along with 7 (i) (a) (ii) of Essential Commodities Act was started against the petitioner Nos.1 and 2 and some other persons.