- (1.) Petitioner, aggrieved by the order passed by the Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court initiating proceeding for contempt in exercise of its suo motu power, has preferred these special leave petitions.
(2.) Leave granted.
(3.) Bereft of unnecessary details the facts giving rise to the present appeals are that the appellant applied on 16th of April, 2003 for grant of mining lease for iron ore over an area of 350 acres in Yeshawanthnagar Range of the Kumarswamy Reserve Forest Area within Sandur Taluk in Bellary District of the State of Karnataka. The State Government processed the request and in exercise of powers under Section 5 (1) of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') by its letter dated 9th of February, 2004 recommended to the Central Government for grant of mining lease in favour of the appellant to the extent of 16.8 hectares. However before any decision could be taken, the Central Government issued notification dated 27th of June, 2005 in exercise of the power under Section 17 A (1A) of the Act and reserved iron ore deposits in the area in question for exploitation by State Trading Corporation of India Limited, a public sector undertaking. In view of the aforesaid reservation the Central Government returned the proposal of the State Government to grant mining lease to the appellant by its letter dated 21st of July, 2005. Aggrieved by the aforesaid notification appellant preferred WP No. 19339 of 2005 (H.G. Rangangoud v. Minister of Coal & Mines, represented by the Secretary & Ors.) before the Karnataka High Court, inter alia praying for quashing the notification reserving the iron ore deposits in favour of the State Trading Corporation of India Limited. The writ petition filed by the appellant was heard along with another writ petition filed by Salgaocar Mining Industries Private Limited and the learned Single Judge by its judgment and order dated 14th of August, 2007 quashed the aforesaid notification dated 27th of June, 2005. Armed with the order of the High Court, appellant represented to the State Government to consider his application for grant of mining lease by its representation dated 18th of September, 2007. After one day of filing of the representation i.e. on 20th of September, 2007 the State Trading Corporation, aggrieved by the order of the learned Single Judge preferred appeal before the High Court. Said appeal was posted for consideration on 3rd of October, 2007 and the Division Bench of the High Court taking into consideration the 'enormity' of the case and finding that all the parties have been served and represented, directed for its final disposal on 11th of October, 2007. However, no interim order was passed. As directed, the matter was heard and reserved for judgment but before the judgment could be pronounced the State Trading Corporation, the appellant before the High Court, brought to its notice that "when the matter was in the hearing process, Government of Karnataka has sent a communication to the Union of India for mining lease in favour of the writ petitioners". The Division Bench of the High Court, when informed about the aforesaid fact "called upon the Government Advocate to explain this situation". The explanation was furnished in which it was inter alia stated that "as there was no interim order granted in the writ appeal and keeping in view the fact that if the mining area is not sanctioned to the writ petitioners the existing mining operation would be forced to close down and keeping in view the jeopardy to the workmen, such recommendation has been made." The explanation put forth by the State Government did not find favour with the High Court and on its prima facie finding that the aforesaid conduct "amounts to interference with the due course of judicial process" initiated suo motu criminal contempt proceedings against the appellant herein and K. Jayachandra, Under Secretary to the Government of Karnataka, Commerce and Industries Department. While doing so the High Court observed as follows: "On going through the affidavit as well as the records, prima facie it appears to us that there is a clear attempt on the part of the writ petitioner Mr. H.G. Rangangoud and the concerned official to take such action when the grant of lease/licence itself was seized and was under consideration by this Court thereby cause on the merit or decision of this court." ;