BHARAT VARSHIYA DIGAMBAR JAIN TIRTH KSHETRIYA COMMITTEE THROUGH ITS PRESIDENT MANOHAR LAL JAIN Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) 19 statuettes were recovered from a property presently in the district of Giridih. The finder is said to be the Jain Swetamber Society, Madhuban. The recovered statuettes constituted treasure within the meaning of the Indian Treasure Trove Act, 1877 since the said Act defined treasure as meaning anything of any value hidden in the soil or in anything affixed thereto. Under Section 4 of the Act, the finder of treasure of a value exceeding Rs. 10/ - has an obligation to give a notice to the Collector in writing of the nature and amount or the approximate value of the treasure, of the place in which it was found and the date of finding. The finder had also an obligation either to deposit the treasure in the nearest Government Treasury or give the Collector such security as the Collector thinks fit, to produce the treasure at such time and place as the Collector may from time to time require. The finder, the Swetamber Society, failed in the duty to give a notice under Section 4 of the Act of finding the statuettes. But another group, known as the Bharat Varshiya Digambar Jain Tirth Kshetriya Committee, herein after referred to as the Digamber Committee filed a petition before the Collector informing him of the excavation and the discovery of the statuettes. It was prayed for in the application filed by the Digambar Committee that an inquiry be held in terms of the Act and to pass, appropriate orders regarding the treasure. That notice on the petition was numbered as M.C. No. 25 of 2000. The Collector issued a notice to the finder, the Swetamber Society and fixed 7.12.2000 as the date for showing cause against the action being taken. He also issued a general notice. Notice was also given to the complainant, the Digamber Society Committee. The Swetamber Society, on receipt of the notice, filed an objection or show cause. It was stated that the statuettes were found, while digging near the Jain Temple, but inside the property belonging to the Society, and that out of the 19 statuettes recovered, one was broken while being excavated, but there was no offer by the Swetamber Society in its objection to furnish security for the production of the statuettes when call upon to do so or to deposit the same in the treasury as contemplated by Section 4 of the Act.

(2.) THE Swetamber Society had a case that on the recovery of the statuettes, the Collector was informed, that the statuettes were put in a box and placed in a locked room in the premises of their temple awaiting further orders from the Collector. Meanwhile on 18.3.2001, the Digamber Committee filed a petition before the Collector praying that the statuettes be kept in safe custody pending adjudication. On 19.11.2001, the Collector issued a direction to the Circle Officer, Pirtand, Giridih, to keep the statuettes in a sealed box and deposit the box in the Government treasury. Neither the Circle Officer, Pirtand, nor the Addl. Advocate General appearing on behalf of the authorities and the State, has bothered to inform the Court whether the Circle Officer had obeyed the direction of the Collector dated 19.11.2001 and taken custody of the statuettes, placed them in a sealed box and deposited the box in the treasury. We may notice here that this was in spite of our issuing notice to the Circle Officer through his counsel on 12.3.2004 as to why we should not comment on the conduct of the Circle Officer, Pirtand, Giridih, subsequent to the issue of the above order by the Collector.

(3.) BEFORE us, Mr. Tara Kant Jha, who appeared for the Swetamber Society, respondent 4 in WP (C) No. 916 of 2003 when confronted with the argument that the revision was not maintainable, fairly submitted that the revision purported to have been filed under Section 76 of the Bihar Practice and Procedure Manual before the Commissioner was not maintainable. Obviously, the effect of that concession is that the order of the Commissioner, Hazaribagh, who quashed the proceedings before the Collector, in Misc. case No. 25 of 2000 became one without jurisdiction apart from other illegalities we may presently advert to. But Mr. Tara Kant Jha, Senior Counsel, submitted that the Swetamber Society in the circumstances has filed WP No. 4820 of 2003 challenging the very initiation of proceedings by the Collector and the order of the Collector dated 19.11.2001. Consequently, it is necessary for this Court to consider the legality and propriety of the action of the Collector himself, irrespective of what has been decided by the Commissioner in the Revision.