Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 41 (JHR)

Ram Subhag Singh v. State of Jharkhand

2025-01-07

NAVNEET KUMAR, SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD

body2025
1. Reference be made to the order dated 11.02.2025 whereby and whereunder after taking note of the issue of pending certificate proceedings, as has been reflected in paragraph 2 of the aforesaid order, we have passed an order directing the State to file detailed affidavit with respect to the approach said to be lackadaisical in making recovery of money to the tune of Rs.600 crores approximately and details having not been provided with respect to the expenditure from the sanctioned amount having been sanctioned in the administrative side to the tune of Rs.83 crores and odd from the DMFT Fund for the financial year 2016-17. 2. It appears from the office note dated 17.02.2025 that no affidavit has been filed in view of the order dated 11.02.2025 as per the computer enquiry. 3. Today, there is no appearance on behalf of the parties. The reason has been informed by way of a communication issued by the Advocates’ Association dated 20.02.2025 that after the condolence meeting on account of sudden demise of one learned member of the Bar namely, Late Suraj Kumar, Advocate, the learned members of the Bar will not take part in judicial proceedings. 4. Mr. Sangkrito Ray Chaudhuri at present working in the capacity of Legal Officer under the Respondent No.5, Panem Coal Mines Limited is present in Court today. 5. He has stated that Vakalatnama has been filed today but due to resolution taken by the Advocates’ Association, the concerned learned counsel is not participating in the Court proceeding. 6. He, however, has stated that the volume of amount is to the tune of Rs.600 crore, out of which the major amount is related with the Certificate Proceeding No.14/19- 20 involving an amount of Rs.5,04,57,92,008/- which was the subject matter of W.P.(C) No.2780 of 2020. After the order having been passed by the Certificate Officer, under its original authority, a revision was preferred under Section 30 of the M.M.D.R. Act, 1957 before the Tribunal constituted by the Central Government wherein the order passed by the Certificate Officer has been quashed and set aside and the matter has been remitted before the original authority vide order dated 09.03.2022 and since then the matter is pending before the Certificate Officer. 7. He has submitted that today Vakalatnama has been filed and, as such, two weeks’ time be allowed to file appropriate affidavit. 8. 7. He has submitted that today Vakalatnama has been filed and, as such, two weeks’ time be allowed to file appropriate affidavit. 8. This Court, considering the aforesaid, is adjourning the matter for two weeks. 9. It is unfortunate that the State has not filed affidavit in pursuance to the order dated 11.02.2025. However, the further direction is upon the concerned authority of the State Government to file affidavit in compliance to the order dated 11.02.2025. 10. The State Government is further directed to bring on record in the said affidavit which was directed to the filed on 11.02.2025 with respect to the stages of the certificate proceeding along with the entire order-sheets with reason of keeping the matter pending for years together. 11. List this matter on 10.03.2025.