OM PRAKASH AGARWALA Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER Om Prakash Agarwala prayed to quash order dated 23.9.2003 passed by Shri Abdul Samad, Sessions Judge, Dhanbad in Cr. Revision No. 198 of 2003, whereby and whereunder he has been pleased to dismiss the criminal revision application filed against the order dated 19.6.2003 passed by Shri V. Kumar, Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad in Baliapur PS Case No. 8 of 2003 (G.R. No. 357 of 2003) in which the prayer of the petitioner for release of the seized machineries, crusher machine and other instruments along with stone chips, etc has been rejected.

(2.) PETITIONER was granted mining lease for mineral stones on 26.4.1990 for ten years at Mouza Paharpur over Plot No. 2598 part measuring an area of 5.74 acres within Baliapur PS of Dhanbad district. He started carrying on business of mining operation. The mining lease expired in the month of April, 2000. He filed renewal application before the respondents on 15.12.1999. When in time no mining lease was renewed, then he filed an application before the Mines Commissioner, Dhanbad. The said Court by order dated 26.7.2000 directed the District Mining Officer, Dhanbad to pass necessary orders. When the District Mining Officer did not pass any order on the renewal application, then petitioner preferred writ application on 19.12.2000 in which direction was issued to comply order dated 26.7.2000 of the Mines Commissioner passed in Cr. Revision No. 140 of 2000. The District Mining Officer cancelled the mining lease by order dated 22.7.2002 which was communicated under letter dated 30.7.2002 regarding cancellation of mining lease. Against that communication, petitioner preferred revision bearing No. 115 of 2002 before the respondents who set aside the impugned order dated 14.1.2003, directing the Deputy Commissioner to take necessary corrective measures for grant of mineral concession if the land is finally decided to be forest land. It was observed that respondent -District Mining Officer/Deputy Commissioner will take written undertaking from this petitioner that he shall not mine till final decision it taken in granting mineral concession. The District Mining Officer, Dhanbad informed this, petitioner to close the work on the land in question and in the meantime, FIR was lodged for carrying on mining operation from 27.7.2002 till the FIR was lodged on 6.2.2003.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the approach of the learned Sessions Judge observing that the provision of zimmenama to the near relative will mean release of the seized articles as the petitioner has not been given benefit of the lease and he cannot sell the same. It was further submitted that even if the seized machineries and materials are material exhibits, it can be released to the owner of the machineries. The petitioner closed the mining operation since December, 2002. The electric connection of the firm was also disconnected in the month of January, 2003. At present, there is no mining operation since from the relevant time when the FIR was lodged. It was submitted that there is no other claimant except this petitioner as owner of the machineries. He has been made victim in between fights of two departments i.e Mining Department and the Forest Department. On these grounds, it was prayed to quash the orders of the learned Courts below and release the seized crusher machines, other instruments and stone chips, etc in favour of the petitioner -owner.