M/S S B Minerals vs State Of Karnataka R/By Its Secretary on 16 July, 2009

[Cites 4, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

M/S S B Minerals vs State Of Karnataka R/By Its Secretary on 16 July, 2009

Bench: V.G.Sabhahit

IN THE men COURT or-* KARNATAKA AT BA2\IGALo't2fE:.f"};'--tt: ~.

DATED THIS THE 16"' DAY OF 3ULY 2009  *f_  *

PRESENT   -

THE HOWELE MR.' 9.1). DIEAKARAE, CSQIIEF  

AND" f '. ' D    
TI-IE HON'BLE MR.qUsT1c_E 
WRIT PETITION NoE_%fé853/2.Don9tD:(;'M~MMs)
BETWEEN:    i   

M/s S.B.MINERALS;__  .     " 
(A registered partriefship*1f_1m1)_,'--t.__  "  '
Rep. by its Managing 1?a3"_tneT, '  
Sri 13.8. Deepalesingh, "*::;, ~
19.33. No.58, K;.R. Roé{d,[.. 
Hospet --~ 583 '20I'~, ' t * 
Be11aryDistrict'.« *

 E V '_ p " _   Petitioner
(By Sri K.N.VPhanindra_,V Admocate}

   A.  ..... 
1. 'State 5: 

Rep ,  its "SéC:e1a"t3*';'
Depa,1=trrient of 'Fjﬁrest, Ecology 82; Environment,

'  MS. Building, -, 

Dr. Ambedkar Road,

" éﬁéizgatlore +560 001.

 ' --. < t   Faregster,

  ' t "--BeI1;c-Dy.

  Division,
'"Sand=L1r Range,

 

 



3. The Range Forest Officer,
Sandur Range,
Sandur, Beilary District.

4. The Deputy Conservator of Forests,
Bellary Division,
Bellary.   -

5. The Director of Mines 85 Geology,
Department of Mines 8:. Geology, ,
"Khanija Bhavan", 5th Floor, D '
Race Course Road,

Bangalore -- 560 001.

6. The Deputy Director of Mine«s..fand  
Department of Mines and Geology,     
Hospet.    _   =

 .. Respondents.

This writ p_etition.is_Vﬁled'-unvtier Articles 226 and 227 of the
Constitution ofglndia prayirigitvo. (mash the first information report
dt.6.2.2009 bearing F'0C". 'tei.o§'t37/2o08~09 ﬁled by the 2nd
respondent on '7.'2.,2009 '._in7,th'e" Court of JMFC, Sandur, vide
Annex~M.  "   '

._ it'§{'h,is"vrriEti'iFpetition coming up for preliminary hearing on this
day, .the,. C'ougrt._gieliy'vered the following»

JUDGMENT

pp ,(Delivered by P.D.Dinakaran, C.J.) petitioner, a registered partnership ﬁrm, holding lease bearing M.L.No.2393 carrying on quarrying Vi'e.,_iopetVrati0ns over an extent of 40.47 Hectares in Ramadurga Fix village, Sandur Taluk, Beliary District, has preferred this writ petition seeking the following reliefs:

i)

111) issue a writ of certiorari or direction First Information Report dated .

FOC No.13?/2008-09 ﬁled the "

on 7.2.2009 in the Court o£:;IMr<"¢; at issue a writ of certioraribr direction quashing the seizure order dated "1)_eaI'ingg.r;urr1i'oer Nil passed by the 2nd"'respond'§3ir1tu;"is dcc:i'are"'by i'i"ss1.1év.Q'f. appropriate writ or direction that" to 4 have no jurisdiction and iauthoriry to direct the petitioner to stop the miningoperations being carried on within the"ar'ea"1eased to the petitioner under the mining ' V div) iiifdirection as deemed ﬁt under the facts M.L.No.2393; and issue such other appropriate writ or order or and circumstances of the case.

encroached outside the teased out area and that the initiated by the investigating officer (Forester) . empowered to do so, as such an eiVlegatior1"»v-begsiié substantiated and proved I by then' in appropriate proceedings before the competent cri1enin.el.<coui't. i 3.3. While deciding the_iss1:ae"wihether it is"proper for this Court to exercise the 226 of the Constitution of India '_quaish P'irs'ti'_1_nforii*1etion Report, in Writ Petition of on 13.4.2009, (M/s.V.S.Lad &_ usAf.TheVi'State of Karnataka and others), we have heid es_herei1nd'er: " it f_7;._g'_;jjssue.VI'v'o._'.T_I:"

Whether it is proper for this Court to exercise V t?*~2e<._ power under Article 226 of the ' __'COP'L3tifufiO?I of India to quash the First Inforrngition Report dated 3.2.2009? 7.12). power of judicial review under "r».A;--ricze"225 of the Constitution of India is akin to '~11' the inherent power conferred under Section 482 of . theCode of Criminal Procedure, It is a settled law ...that even though such inherent powers conferred on the High Court are very wide, the very r plenitude of the power requires great caution in its exercise and the Courts must be very careful to see i i that its decision in exercise of such inherent power is based on sound principles as held~by__the Court in the case of INDER MOHAN 4' _ AND ANOTHER v. STATE or Urizaiéaucngt * ' AND OTHERS reported in 'l,'2:goo_7)12"' sec'), because the inherent powers conferred on' this Court has to be sparingl_u *e.2;:erc1;se;i'Vi(i-,'to.give effect 'V to an order under the Code} {ii} prevent-.ab.use of process of Court; wand {iii} to seciiirelthe ends of justice," any 'to"e-neourage violations of the[prov'isions.jjofangi_statu.tes in force much any *agreemen"t thereunder which :'empowers.Vthe'Vcornpetent authority to take appropriate 'action!againstfthell law breakers and those who viielate the cond'itions of agreement. ;,.A'-v7.3)'. In any'"'event, such powers should not" be e;cercise'd._ to stifle a legitimate prosecution "and'__therefo~re "Courts should refrain ﬁom giving a ptjima-_faciej'..--decision in a case where the entire facts are 'incomplete and hazy, more so, when the _ ._evir:lence"' has not been collected and produced beforebthe Court.

V' Government Advocate comes 7.4) In the instant case, the learned to substantiate the complaint made against the petitioner as to the illegal mining operation carried on outside the lease out area. Therefore, whenHt_h_e_'=.. V evidence is yet to be collected and producedyblefore the Court and the respondents are-, pr*epa'red'.to'* & substantiate the violation of 9c.ondition_s' by the petitioner, it may not be proper forihtliis Court.to"use it h the inherent power to stifle...litheﬁlegitiniatey prosecution nor to piimta-ﬁ21cie.ty.decision hastily. Hence, we are coniiincedlithatit'inaynot be proper for this-fCo_urr 1:6 .1j.LR;~:.g;'t this stage.

V __ Z,v5}"£ssue.:l\3'oi1' accordingly." 3.4. Foiicmtnrg the i:{;1i:§'r.§"ndered in W.P.No.3812/2009, referred to"s1_ipra; the" prayer' of the petitioner in this writ jvilqrgashinéllof First Information Report dated No. 137/ 2008-09 is rejected reserving Aiiiberty to"'«the..__respbndents to proceed in accordance with law, it 'A to theoirders thereunder.

/"E; r J V-..,,..m4»..-»»»->~«"""""'"'""' "'""'""

encroachment by the petitioner with reference to'. the survey records and other relevant matertialt» available and documents produced in this regard, "

[f any encroachment of forest land..isfound," S respondents are at liberty to assess the 21am;;gesl' "

caused on account of such illegalllmining outside A' the leased out mining area Va'n,d"~recooer.. S from the petitioner. "

4.2. Pursuant tothe direction of 24th April 2009, a survey VVI3r;.U.V.Singh, IFS, Conservator . of -- the &'presef1ce'":vof following members on 16.6.2009; '

(i) Contrcﬂier of 'MAir1es,"'iIndia11 Bureau of Mines ' Regional"~O_ffice, Bangalore.

ﬂl'(ii)_""' Suioerititending Surveyor, Survey of India, S S "'B'aI}'s-aiore'-.-

(iii) Director Mines and Geology Department, I-Iospet.

J(iv), Assistant Conservator of Forests, Bellary.

-- (vi "iRa.nge Forest Officer, Sandur. it (vi) Surveyors of Forest Department, Bellary. -10-

(vii) Surveyor of Mines 85 Geology Department, Hospet.

4.3. As per the report dated 1631 June 2009,', the petitioner is found to have encroached to an extent~«~oi'_p» Hectares, however, is not in possession of any__extra:.:virgin'--« area. The report further shows that damages caused by the aforesaid encroachment-".t.i,e'; to extent of 19.20 Hectares is under

5. In of'i§tVhe_i:'report submitted, as referred to above, we thefo11o\i2in§arder":

i) _.As regar:ds...i:he". encroachment made by the V-iiiapetitioner tovvanivextent of 19.20 Hectares, the of the. learned counsel for the A pe,titi_oi,1er to vacate the encroached area of an extent of 19.20 Hectares within a period of ﬂfour Weeks is recorded.

"Vii? With regard to the iron ore already seized under the impugned FIR, the Government is

iii) -11- at liberty to auction the seized ore in accordance with law, after notice to the petitioner and the petitioner is at libertyévitoj-.._:i_'~._ participate in the auction. i Liberty is also reserved to reJs,ponderit's;"tt)'::4i,3fv:oifi.¢ out the damages / loss within giving notice to the 'pVe't-it.ionerv~ .Ei3.Iid_ damage / loss asA_sesseci,___'.i: be.' iiecovered from the petitioner? p - i' The fit . petition, is disposed: of,' "accordingly.

7 1:11::_i_'<'e:z:.§__ Yés/ ' nest: fies/No rm Sd/--

Chief Iustice Sd/-§___ Judge

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court