MINERAL DEVELOPMENT LTD Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal arises out of an order passed by the learned Subordinate Judge of Hazaribagh, holding the appellant, the Mineral Development Limited, a Company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act, guilty of violating the order of ad interim injunction passed by the Court and as such liable to punishment under Order 39, Rule 2 (3), of the Code of Civil Procedure. The order passed was attachment of the properties of the appellant of the value of Rs. 6,000/-. The appellant is defendant No. 4 in Title Suit No. 53 of 1954 brought by the respondent, State of Bihar, for a declaration that the appellant had no right to continue the operations of the mines in certain areas which were leased out to it by the proprietor of the Ramgarh Raja after the interest of the lessor vested in the State of Bihar by virtue of a notification issued under Section 3 of the Bihar Land Reforms Act. The plaintiff prayed for issue of ad interim injunction restraining the appellant from carrying on the work of mining pending the final decision of the suit. It is stated that the villages concerned in respect of which the order of ad interim injunction was effective are Pundri, Bairi Tanr, Ambakola, Goriato, Kawabar and Pujari. The appellant appeared in Court after notices were duly served on all the defendants, who were 24 in number, on the 18th January, 1955, and filed a petition showing cause against the order of injunction. In spite of knowledge, therefore, of the order of restraint passed by the learned Subordinate Judge, the appellant continued the working of the mine as before which amounted to disobedience of the order of injunction and as such the appellant was liable to be dealt with in accordance with Order 39, Rule 2 (3). This was discovered when the Mining Officer Sri S. Sinha Choudhury visited village Pundri on the 1st February, 1955, and found two cart-loads of mica being transported from Pundri godown to Bhade Dih godown of the Mineral Development Limited, the appellant, under miner's licence No. 261 issued in favour of the Company. It is unnecessary to set out further facts about this matter as learned counsel for the appellant has not denied the factum of operation carried on in the mine at Pundri on the 5th of February, 1955, when the Mining Officer and the Inspector of Mica Accounts, Kodarma, visited the mine.

(2.) The defence urged on behalf of the appellant was that it was not the appellant which was engaged in carrying on mining operations which came to the notice of the Mining Officer, both on the 1st of February and the 5th of February, 1955, but it was one Ambika Prasad Singh in whose favour the lease was granted by an agreement, dated the 3rd of August, 1954, authorising him to carry on the mining operations at village Pundri and to certain other lessees in respect of other villages on different dates. The same having been done by agreement dated the 28th of October, 1954, thus, prior to the institution of the aforesaid title suit, and they not having been made parties to the suit, and the order of interim injunction not having been issued and served upon them, these grantees were not affected by the order. The appellant also not having disobeyed the order, it was not liable for disobedience of the order of ad interim injunction knowledge of which was not denied by the appellant. The learned Subordinate Judge, however, was informed by the learned counsel for the State of Bihar that so far as the removal of mica, from the mines in villages Bairi Tanr, Ambakola, Goriato, Kawabar and Pujari was concerned, there was no evidence in support thereof. The application was accordingly confined to the removal of mica only from village Pundri which was also the subject-matter of the suit which, as I have said above, was for a declaration that the conveyances, leases and sub-leases described in the various schedules were sham, colourable and farzi and did net pass any title to the transferees. In fact, all these properties were still in exclusive possession of defendant no. 1, Raja Bahadur Kamkshya Narain Singh, the proprietor of Ramgarh; and after the vesting of the estate of defendant No. 1 in the State of Bihar as per notification dated the 3rd of November, 1951, the mining rights in the areas comprised within the ambit of Ramgarh Raj also vested in the State of Bihar. A permanent injunction has also been prayed for in the suit, restraining the proprietor from executing any lease or sub-lease etc., in respect of any portion of the Ramgarh Estate and Serampore Estate. There was also a prayer for restraining the defendant from working any mine or obtaining any minerals as also restraining the other defendants from doing the same on foot of the leases or sub-leases granted to them by defendant No. 1. There was further a prayer for compensation.

(3.) The learned Subordinate Judge has come to the following findings:-