SUBODH GOPAL BOSE Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This ia an application under Article 215 of the Constitution of India read with Order 39, Rule 2(3) of the Code of Civil Procedure for committing the State of Bihar (the sole opposite Party) for contempt of Court for violating and committing a breach of the urder dated 7 -4 -1965 passed by this Court in Miscellaneous Appeal No. 78 of 1964.

(2.) The facts giving rise to the present application are these. On 30 -9 -1933 the petitioner purchased an estate known as Kuchwar Mahal in the district of Shaha -bad comprising an area of 26,592 bighas and odd (about 16.620 acres) and he came in possession thereof. He quarried limestone in that Mahal since his purchase. There were deposits of iron pyrites, limestone and other minerals in that Mahal. The petitioner carried on his business in the name of Kuchwar Lime and Stone Co, in the said Mahal. On 2 -4 -1940 he gave notice to the Government under Section 14 of the Mines Act, 1923 about the opening of pyrites mines in the said Mahal, commonly known as Amjhor pyrites Mines. Thereafter, the petitioner continued quarrying limestone and developing the pyrites after spending several lacs of rupees, and he was especially encouraged to do so by the Government of India. By notification No. 1406/LR/ZAN dated 27 -10 -1953 which was published in Bihar Gazette on 2 -12 -1953, the said Kuchwar Mahal vested in the Government of Bihar under the provisions of the Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950, and on 25 -1 -1954 the estate was handed over to the State, excepting mines, minerals, dhowrahs, quarters, offices, etc. The petitioner continued in possession of the entire estate in respect of the mines and minerals. On 5 -2 -1954 and 24 -5 -1954 the petitioner filed petitions before the Collector of Shahabad for formal execution of the leases in respect of the aforesaid minerals in 16.620 acres of land according to Section 9 of the Bihar Land Reforms Act. The Additional Collector of Shahabad recommended by his Memo No Mines 145 dated 2 -4 -1956 to the Commissioner of Patna Division for the grant of a mining lease of Limestones to the petitioner for an area of 1248.31 acres. The State, however, recognised the petitioner as its statutory lessee in respect of only 2.26 acres for iron pyrites and 118.06 acres only for limestone on certain terms and conditions by letter No. Mines 781 dated 30 -12 -1959.

(3.) The petitioner came to know that the State of Bihar was inclined to grant a lease of the pyrites to the Pyrites and Chemicals Development Co. Ltd., and hence he filed Title Suit No. 95 of 1963 on 15 -7 -1963 in the court of Subordinate Judge, Sasaram against the said Company and the State of Bihar for a declaration of his title in respect of the said mines and minerals over the entire area of Kuchwar Mahal, and he made a prayer for a permanent injunction restraining the State of Bihar from granting a lease to the said Company. Meanwhile, a Mines Tribunal was appointed at Gaya on 17 -8 -1960 under Section 12 of the Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950. The petitioner filed an application in the said title suit for a temporary injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the rights of the petitioner in respect of the mines and minerals in the entire suit property known as Kuchwar Mahal bearing tauzi No. 10742, and he made a prayer for restraining the defendants from carrying on any mining operation whatsoever in the said property and for restraining defendant No. 1 from granting any lease in respect of that property. The State of Bihar (defendant No. 1) objected to the grant of an injunction. The Subordinate Judge dismissed the said application on 14 -12 -1963, although he held that the petitioner had a prima facie case. Being aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner filed Miscellaneous Appeal 78 of 1964 in this Court. The petitioner filed an application in that appeal for injunction against the State of Bihar and on 20 -11 -1964 an order (a copy of which is Annexure A) was passed restraining the State of Bihar from granting any further lease or permit other than the one with respondent No. 2 which had already been granted in respect of the property in dispute.