RAMESH CHANDRA MAHALIK Vs. STATE OF ORISSA (VIGILANCE)

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Government Advocate for the State. This is an application under section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petitioner is an accused for the alleged commission of offence under sections 120 -B/420/379/411 and section 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of the P.C. Act and section 21(1) of the Mines and Minerals Development and Regulation Act and section 3 of the Forest Conservation Act, 1980 -in V.G.R. case No. 5/2013 of the Court of learned Special Judge (Vigilance), Keonjhar arising out of Balasore Vigilance P.S. Case No. 30/2013.

(2.) THE prosecution alleges that accused B.K. Mohanty was having a mining lease in respect of an area of Ac. 140.70 at Uliburu village with surface right for carrying out mining operation over Ac. 69.78 with effect from 13.12.1983 for a period of twenty years. This lease got expired on 12.12.2003. In the same village, another accused Jagadish Mishra had been granted the lease for an area of Ac. 75.40 for a period of 30 years commencing from 12.12.2003 which stood revoked by State Government on 10.1.1995 for want of forest clearance as well as for other reasons. In case of mining lease of accused B.K. Mohanty, a renewal application was filed on 12.12.2003. The renewal application having not been filed one year prior to the expiry of the period of lease in compliance with the provisions contained in Rule 24(A)(6) of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960, there remained no scope for the accused B.K. Mohanty being treated as "deemed lessee" in respect of the said lease hold mining area. When the matter stood thus in respect of above mining leases, on 29.12.2003, accused B.K. Mohanty executed a deed of power of attorney in favour of M/s. Snehapuspa Marketing Pvt. Ltd. represented by the accused Dipak Gupta as its Director for Mining Operation in that very lease hold area and trading of Minerals. This deal is said to have been wholly illegal and unauthorized with ulterior motive as by then accused B.K. Mohanty had absolutely no such right whatsoever in respect of that erstwhile mining lease in his favour.

(3.) FURTHER , allegations stand that being armed with said fraudulent deeds of power of attorney where by no right whatsoever came to the hands of the power of attorney holder i.e., accused Dipak Gupta, as no such right was by then in the hands of the principals, who are also the accused persons in this case, said accused in connivance with those erstwhile lessees and some responsible Government Officials of Mining, Forest and Revenue Departments including the present petitioner started carrying out the illegal Mining activity over and beyond the mining areas encroaching huge extent of nearby forest land revenue land in blatant violation of the provisions of law. The period of such operation being from 2004 to 2009, during the period, it is said that the illegal excavation and sale of minerals have been done continuously in this way, there has been successful commission of left of 4748826.000 MT of iron ore/Fines worth of Rs. 839,67,11,748/ - as per the value then prevailing whereas its present value stands at Rs. 1,98,47,89,54,487/ -. It is also the allegation that the sale was channelized through a company M/s. Deepak Steal and Power Company Limited where again accused Dipak Gupta is a Director with his parents and family members and that was done by under pricing. The petitioner and other official of Government Departments are said to have abused their power by allowing the accused Dipak Gupta in going ahead with such illegal mining having full knowledge and sitting as mute spectators dishonestly by conniving therein.