Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 106 (JHR)

Hindalco Industries Limited v. State of Jharkhand

2018-01-12

SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR

body2018
JUDGMENT : Shree Chandrashekhar, J. I.A. No. 231 of 2018 A strange application has been filed. Seeking exemption from filing compliance report in terms of order dated 04.01.2018 passed in W.P.(C) No. 7286 of 2017, the respondents have filed this application. 2. The learned Advocate-General submits that under the High Court Rules period of limitation for filing appeal against an order passed by the Single Judge of this Court is 30 days and an appeal vide L.P.A. No. 10 of 2018 alongwith an application for stay of order dated 04.01.2018 has been preferred by the State of Jharkhand on 06.01.2018 itself, and that is the reason why this application has been filed seeking exemption from filing compliance report, as ordered by this Court. 3. Mr. Chanchal Jain, the learned conducting counsel states that two defects were notified by the Stamp Reporter in the said Appeal memorandum which have been removed on 11.01.2018. 4. Mr. A.K. Ganguly, the learned Senior counsel appearing for the writ petitioner-Hindalco Industries Limited taking exception to the application for exemption vide I.A. No. 231 of 2018 submits that this application is maintainable, for vide order dated 04.01.2018 a direction was issued to the Secretary, Department of Industries, Mines and Geology in his personal capacity, however, the present application has been sworn by the Assistant Mining Officer, Lohardaga (presently holding the post of District Mining Officer). 5. In the application which has been filed on behalf of the respondents while swearing unconditional devotion by them to the orders passed by this Court, in the same breath the respondents have pleaded that non-filing of the compliance report is intentional. The affidavit filed in support of this application does indicate which are the statements made in this application are true to the knowledge of the person who has sworn the affidavit and which are the paragraphs which are true to his information which has been derived from the records. By an order dated 04.01.2018 in W.P.(C) No. 7286 of 2017, the Secretary, Department of Industries, Mines and Geology, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi-respondent No. 2 was directed to ensure compliance of the direction issued to the District Mining Officer, Lohardaga who was directed to issue Transit Challan to the petitioner-company, forthwith, and file its compliance report by 08.01.2018. Paragraph Nos. 2 and 3 of the affidavit filed in I.A. No. 231 of 2018 are extracted below: “2. Paragraph Nos. 2 and 3 of the affidavit filed in I.A. No. 231 of 2018 are extracted below: “2. That I have gone through the contents of this interlocutory application and its affidavit as such fully understood. 3. That the statements made in paragraphs _________ are true to my knowledge, the statements made in paragraphs _________ are true to my information derived from records and the rest are by way of submission to this Hon'ble Court." 6. Merely by stating that the order dated 04.01.2018 passed in W.P.(C) No. 7286 of 2017 has been challenged by filing a Letters Patent Appeal on 06.01.2018 and therefore the compliance report "could be filed", the application vide I.A. No. 231 of 2018 seeking exemption from filing the compliance report has been filed. Evidently, on such plea this application cannot be entertained. 7. Without expressing any opinion on filing of such incompetent affidavit, bereft of merits, I.A. No. 231 of 2018 is dismissed. I.A. No. 372 of 2018 : 8. This application has been filed for a direction to the respondent-authorities to comply with order dated 04.01.2018 passed in W.P.(C) No. 7286 of 2017, in particular, to direct them to issue Transit Challans, and to initiate a proceeding under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. 9. The assisting counsel to the learned Advocate-General seeks two weeks' time for filing response. 10. Two weeks' time is granted for filing response to the prayers; for direction to the respondents to comply with order dated 04.01.2018, and for issuing Transit Challans to the petitioner-company. Post this application on 02.02.2018. 11. In "Subrata Roy Sahara v. Union of India" reported in (2014) 8 SCC 470 , the Supreme Court has observed as under: "185.2. Disobedience of orders of a court strikes at the very root of the rule of law on which the judicial system rests. Judicial orders are bound to be obeyed at all costs. Howsoever grave the effect may be, is no answer for non-compliance with a judicial order. Judicial orders cannot be permitted to be circumvented. In exercise of the contempt jurisdiction, courts have the power to enforce compliance with judicial orders, and also, the power to punish for contempt." 12. The Assistant Mining Officer, Lohardaga is present in the Court. 13. Howsoever grave the effect may be, is no answer for non-compliance with a judicial order. Judicial orders cannot be permitted to be circumvented. In exercise of the contempt jurisdiction, courts have the power to enforce compliance with judicial orders, and also, the power to punish for contempt." 12. The Assistant Mining Officer, Lohardaga is present in the Court. 13. On the Court's query, whether he has received any written communication from any superior officer with regard to order dated 04.01.2018, he says that he has received any instruction/direction in the matter from any superior authority. 14. On the Court's direction, names of the opposite parties have been supplied by the assisting counsel to the learned Advocate-General which are as under: (1) Sunil Kumar Barnwal, the Secretary, Department of Industries, Mines and Geology. (2) Niranjan Prasad, Assistant Mining Officer, Lohardaga. 15. In view of the above facts and the allegations made in I.A. No. 372 of 2018, Registry is directed to institute a suo-motu contempt case against Mr. Sunil Kumar Barnwal, Secretary, Department of Industries, Mines and Geology and Mr. Niranjan Prasad, Assistant Mining Officer, Lohardaga, which shall be posted for preliminary hearing on 19.01.2018; Fridays are designated days for hearing of the contempt cases. However, it is indicated here that at this stage the Court has not issued any notice to the proposed-contemnors under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 and they are not required to file their show-cause at this stage. The learned counsel for the writ-petitioner may assist the Court on that day. Decided accordingly.