MD FASIUDDIN Vs. STATE OF BIHAR NOW JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) As common questions of law are involved in all these applications, they are taken up together and disposed of by this common judgment.

(2.) The petitioners, herein, at the relevant time were posted as senior officials in TISCO, Noamundi, and the cases in which they have been made accused, and the reliefs prayed for by them are detailed herein under:-

(3.) It is an admitted fact that TISCO was a lessee for carrying on the mining operations in the said protected forests. However, in the intervening period, as there was no temporary working permission by the Government of India, in favour of TISCO and mining operations were found to be continued by the TISCO, the cases were instituted against the officials of the TISCO, but in the prosecution reports, it is only mentioned that TISCO was found carrying out the mining operations, even though the temporary working permission had expired on the date of occurrence. It is stated in these applications that TISCO had filed writ petitions for restraining the forest department from interfering in the mining operations, wherein, the High Court had directed the TISCO to approach the Central Government and had dismissed the writ petition. TISCO had also approached the Central Government on 17.3.1998 and had also filed S.L.P. in the Supreme Court against the order passed by the High Court in the writ petition. It appears that in SLA (Civil ) No. 7054 of 1998, by order dated 24.4.1998, status quo was ordered to be maintained till the Central Government took any decision in the matter. The said order has been brought on record as Annexure 3 Srs. in the application. It also appears that on 28.4.1998, extension of the temporary working permission over already broken area was granted by the Central Government in favour of the TISCO for a period of six months.