D.G.R. Patnaik, J. - (1.) A rejoinder to the show cause replies filed by Sri H.K. Jha and Mrs. Manjula Upadhyay has been filed on behalf of the petitioner. A separate Interlocutory Application vide I.A. No. 393 of 2010 has also been filed on behalf of the petitioner.
(2.) IN the Interlocutory Application the petitioner has prayed for allowing him to make certain amendments in the original review application in order to introduce certain additional facts which, according to the petitioner, would confirm that he was duly authorized by the Chairman of the Mines Board to file this review application on behalf of the Board and that such authorization given by the Chairman was duly ratified by the Board at its meeting held on 08.11.2008. As it appears from the review application, in the affidavit the deponent, who is the present petitioner, has claimed to have authority of the Chairman of the Mines Board to file the review application and the additional facts which is sought to be introduced by way of amendment, appears to be in consonance with the statements made in the affidavit. As such, the prayer for amendment is allowed.
(3.) REFERRING now to the purported authorization as claimed by the petitioner, the same has been vehemently opposed by the Respondent No. 1. Sri Mahesh Tewari, learned Counsel representing Respondent No. 1, submits that the aforesaid plea of authorization, as taken by Sri Sanjay Upadhaya, the deponent of the affidavit in the review application, is totally misleading and false. Learned Counsel would want to explain that from perusal of the minutes of the Board Meeting (Annexure -9/B), it would transpire that it was attended only by three persons namely Khiru Mahto, Mahavir Sahu and Sanjay Upadhaya himself whereas the Board comprises of as many as five members including the Chairman. Furthermore, though the authorization as purportedly given by the Chairman on 11.10.2008 to Sri Sanjay Upadhaya was only to file L.P.A. Against the order passed by this Court in W.P.(S) No. 1887 of 2008, the ratification of such authorization could be made only in terms of the authorization as given and not beyond. Learned Counsel adds further that even otherwise, the Board could be represented only by its Chairman and by any other person only upon the authorization of the Chairman and even if represented by any other person on the authorization of the Chairman, the Vakalatnama has to be filed by the Chairman himself and not by any member of the Board which the deponent of the affidavit of the review application Sri Sanjay Upadhaya would want to claim.;