Research › Search › Judgment

Orissa High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 109 (ORI)

Ramesh Chandra Mahalik v. State of Orissa

2015-02-19

S.K.MISHRA

body2015
JUDGMENT : S.K. Mishra, J. 1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Government Advocate for the State. This is an application under section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petitioner is an accused for the alleged commission of offence under sections 120-B/420/379/411 and section 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of the P.C. Act and section 21(1) of the Mines and Minerals Development and Regulation Act and section 3 of the Forest Conservation Act, 1980-in V.G.R. case No. 5/2013 of the Court of learned Special Judge (Vigilance), Keonjhar arising out of Balasore Vigilance P.S. Case No. 30/2013. 2. The prosecution alleges that accused B.K. Mohanty was having a mining lease in respect of an area of Ac. 140.70 at Uliburu village with surface right for carrying out mining operation over Ac. 69.78 with effect from 13.12.1983 for a period of twenty years. This lease got expired on 12.12.2003. In the same village, another accused Jagadish Mishra had been granted the lease for an area of Ac. 75.40 for a period of 30 years commencing from 12.12.2003 which stood revoked by State Government on 10.1.1995 for want of forest clearance as well as for other reasons. In case of mining lease of accused B.K. Mohanty, a renewal application was filed on 12.12.2003. The renewal application having not been filed one year prior to the expiry of the period of lease in compliance with the provisions contained in Rule 24(A)(6) of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960, there remained no scope for the accused B.K. Mohanty being treated as "deemed lessee" in respect of the said lease hold mining area. When the matter stood thus in respect of above mining leases, on 29.12.2003, accused B.K. Mohanty executed a deed of power of attorney in favour of M/s. Snehapuspa Marketing Pvt. Ltd. represented by the accused Dipak Gupta as its Director for Mining Operation in that very lease hold area and trading of Minerals. This deal is said to have been wholly illegal and unauthorized with ulterior motive as by then accused B.K. Mohanty had absolutely no such right whatsoever in respect of that erstwhile mining lease in his favour. 3. Similarly, another Power of Attorney was executed by Jagadish Mishra on 17.4.2004 although long prior to that his mining lease had been revoked. This deal is said to have been wholly illegal and unauthorized with ulterior motive as by then accused B.K. Mohanty had absolutely no such right whatsoever in respect of that erstwhile mining lease in his favour. 3. Similarly, another Power of Attorney was executed by Jagadish Mishra on 17.4.2004 although long prior to that his mining lease had been revoked. Said deed is also in the same vain as in case of accused B.K. Mohanty and the attorney as well as the purpose remain the same when that deal is also said to be with oblique motive. 4. Further, allegations stand that being armed with said fraudulent deeds of power of attorney where by no right whatsoever came to the hands of the power of attorney holder i.e., accused Dipak Gupta, as no such right was by then in the hands of the principals, who are also the accused persons in this case, said accused in connivance with those erstwhile lessees and some responsible Government Officials of Mining, Forest and Revenue Departments including the present petitioner started carrying out the illegal Mining activity over and beyond the mining areas encroaching huge extent of nearby forest land revenue land in blatant violation of the provisions of law. The period of such operation being from 2004 to 2009, during the period, it is said that the illegal excavation and sale of minerals have been done continuously in this way, there has been successful commission of left of 4748826.000 MT of iron ore/Fines worth of Rs. 839,67,11,748/- as per the value then prevailing whereas its present value stands at Rs. 1,98,47,89,54,487/-. It is also the allegation that the sale was channelized through a company M/s. Deepak Steal and Power Company Limited where again accused Dipak Gupta is a Director with his parents and family members and that was done by under pricing. The petitioner and other official of Government Departments are said to have abused their power by allowing the accused Dipak Gupta in going ahead with such illegal mining having full knowledge and sitting as mute spectators dishonestly by conniving therein. 5. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was there working as Mining Officer from 22.7.2005 to 15.10.2005 when as per rule the competent authority is the Deputy Director of Mines and it is he who may cause an enquiry in granting permission. 5. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was there working as Mining Officer from 22.7.2005 to 15.10.2005 when as per rule the competent authority is the Deputy Director of Mines and it is he who may cause an enquiry in granting permission. It is also his submission that in all these cases during the period of petitioner's remaining; as mining Officer, permissions have been accorded by him for and on behalf of D.D.M. as he who had no other option than to accept the survey report and those have received post facto approval. So, he submits that it is a fit case for grant for anticipatory bail to the petitioner when there stands no such impediment. 6. This Court considering the bail Application No. 6083/2014 of an accused similarly placed as the present petitioner has come to the following conclusion: "Considering the rival submission and on going through the materials, it is prima facie seen that the accusations remain on the score that-accused Gupta erstwhile lease holders and Government servants including this petitioner having connived with their full knowledge have caused loss to the public exchequer to the tune of Rs. 8,39,67,11,748/- by entering into a criminal conspiracy playing fraud on the Government and these activities have continued for quite a long period. More so in the process, it is said that there has been looting of minerals resources of the State for wrongful gain. The erstwhile lessees having full knowledge about their of having no right whatsoever appear to have executed the deeds of power of attorney and the Government officials have gone to facilitate those accused persons in amassing wealth at the cost of and against the interest of the revenue of the State thereby affecting the State's economy to such an extent, also to the great sufferance of the community. The materials collected when viewed prima facie show the cool calculation and evil design with a view to earn huge sum a person how has jumped into the scene all of a sudden being a total stranger to the leasehold with a clandestine deal with other accused persons. The materials collected when viewed prima facie show the cool calculation and evil design with a view to earn huge sum a person how has jumped into the scene all of a sudden being a total stranger to the leasehold with a clandestine deal with other accused persons. Accused Jagadish Mishra's application and consequent direction for survey prima facie appears to be a move at a much later point of time with a bid to wash away the sin and create a some screen." Considering the aforesaid facts, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the present petitioner. Accordingly, the BLAPL is rejected being devoid of any merit.