Satish Giri vs State Of Jharkhand And Ors

Heard, Mr. P.A.S. Pati, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Radha Krishna Gupta, learned counsel for the respondent-State.

The petitioner has preferred this writ petition for direction upon respondent No.2 to immediately and forthwith unseal the business premises of the

petitioner which has been sealed by him on 24.03.2014.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner was carrying his business as a proprietorship concerned in the name of M/s. Sushila

Enterprises and the petitioner was engaged in manufacturing process as well as in wholesale trade. The petitioner has taken an area of 25 decimals on

lease at the time of setting up the unit at Mouza Jorkat under Thana No.208, Tauji No.58, Khetwat No.1, Halka No.4, Block Medani Nagar, District

Palamau under Khata No.66 and Plot No.374. A formal agreement was entered by lessor on 26.02.2007 and the petitioner got it registered as a small

scale Industry with the District Industry Centre on 10.11.2006. He further submits that the petitioner had regularly purchased the raw materials i.e.

dolomite after paying royalty to the State Government. He further submits that valid subsisting electricity connection was also taken by the petitioner

from Jharkhand State Electricity Board. He further submits that respondent No.2 on 24.03.2014 at about 6 p.m. came to the petitioner’s unit with

other officials of the Forest Department and sealed the business premises of the petitioner. Against this, the petitioner has filed this writ petition.

Mr. P.A.S. Pati, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that without hearing him and providing any opportunity to the petitioner, unit in question has

been sealed by the authority.

Per contra, Mr. R.K. Gupta, learned counsel for the respondent-State submits that the D.F.O Medaninagar and Range Officer, Kundari along with

other forest staffs inspected the grinding factory of the petitioner and found their one truck loaded with dolomite powder. The truck was seized and

the factory was sealed as no valid paper of mining department was shown and the challan and papers produced were sent to the District Mining

Officer, Palamau vide letter No.792 dated 27.03.2014. The District Mining Officer, Palamau sent his report vide letter No.154 dated 01.04.2014, it

transpires that Transport Challan for the vehicle i.e. truck No.BR-02 Q-2875 was not correct and it was being transported. The petitioner was fined

Rs.10,000/- (Ten Thousand) as punishment for violation of mining rules. However, the truck was released by the D.F.O, Medininagar. The petitioner

is habitual offender for the aforesaid Act. A criminal case was initiated and during pendency of the criminal case, he was again found indulged in

running his factory and transportation of grinded dolomite powder on truck, on the basis of illegal and forged transport permit. He further submits that

it has been found that the petitioner was operating with the distance of 500 meters from demarcation line of notified forest area and for that the

enquiry is going on. The petitioner was asked to remove his factory but he did not do so that is why the first information report was lodged against him

vide G.R. Case No.277 of 2011, which is still pending.

Mr. R.K Gupta, learned counsel for the respondent further submits that said unit is located just 10 meters away from the notified forest area, 60

meters away from the National Highway and only 200 meters away from the habitation of Jorkat Village. Moreover, dolomite unit has been

established just besides a fresh water pond which has been used for various purposes such as, forest wild animals often come their for drinking water.

On these facts, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-State submits that no cogent reason has been made out by the petitioner for unsealing

the premises in question.

Having heard counsel for the parties and considering the objection raised in the counter-affidavit and submission of the learned counsel for

respondent-State, this Court is not inclined to exercise its extra-ordinary power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed. However, if the enquiry report is completed, the respondent authority may communicate to the

petitioner.