JITENDRA NATH PATNAIK Vs. STATE OF ODISHA (VIGILANCE)
HIGH COURT OF ORISSA
Jitendra Nath Patnaik
State of Odisha (Vigilance)
Click here to view full judgement.
(1.) All the petitioners in these Criminal Revisions have challenged the order dated 19.07.2019 passed by the learned Special Judge (Vigilance), Keonjhar in VGR Case No. 19 of 2011 and have further prayed to discharge them from the offences under Sections 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act,1968, Sections 379/120-B of the Indian Penal Code, Sections 21 of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulations) Act, 1957 (hereinafter in short called "MMDR Act"), Section 3-A of the Forest Conservation Act, 1980 and Section 58 of the Mineral Conservation and Development Rules, 1988.
(2.) Since all these Revision Petitions are arising out of the very same impugned order dated 19.07.2019 passed in VGR Case No. 19 of 2011 by the learned Special Judge (Vigilance), Keonjhar, they are heard together analogously and disposed of by this common order.
(3.) The case in nutshell is that a mining lease was granted in favour of Late Banshidhar Patnaik, the father of the accused-petitioner in CRLREV No.534/2019 Jitendranath Patnaik over an area of Ac.260.00 dec. for Manganese and Iron Ore. Mining lease so granted for Manganese was for 20 years and for Iron Ore was for 30 years. The lease period started on 31.07.1959. However, in the year 1967 said Banshidhar Patnaik surrendered the mining lease in respect of Manganese but continued in respect of Iron Ore. Before expiry of the said lease period, he applied for renewal of the lease on 30.07.1988 for the break up area, but without the de-reservation proposal though there were forest areas within the applied area. However, no renewal of fresh lease was granted in his favour after 31.07.1989, but the period was further extended for one year more i.e., till 31.07.1990 in view of Rule 24-A of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960 as it then was.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.