- (1.) As common questions of law are involved in all these applications, they are taken up together and disposed of by this common judgment.
(2.) The petitioners, herein, at the relevant time were posted as senior officials in TISCO, Noamundi, and the cases in which they have been made accused, and the reliefs prayed for by them are detailed herein under:- (a). Cr. Misc. No.7391 of 2000 (R) This application has been filed by the petitioners for quashing the criminal proceedings in C/3 Case No. 15 of 1998, pending before the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chaibasa, which was instituted on the basis of the prosecution report sent to the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chaibasa under Memo No. 425 dated 25.4.1998, alleging therein that TISCO was found involved in mining operations on 13.4.1998 in the protected forests Mahudi, Sarbil and Korwa, whereas temporary working permission granted to the TISCO by the Government of India for carrying the mining operations, had already expired on 12.4.1998. Accordingly, it is alleged that TISCO had committed offence under Section 33(c) of the Indian Forest Act and Section 2 (ii) of the Forest (Conservation) Act. On the basis of the prosecution report submitted by the Forest Officials, C/3 Case No. 15 of 1998 was instituted, wherein by order dated 27.4.1998, passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chaibasa, cognizance was taken against the petitioners, being the officials of the TISCO, for the offences under Section 33 of the Indian Forest Act and Section 2 of the Forest (Conservation) Act. (b). Cr. Misc. No. 7392 of 2000 (R) This application has been filed by the petitioners for quashing the prosecution against them in C/3 Case No. 16 of 1998, pending before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chaibasa, which was instituted on the basis of the prosecution report sent to the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chaibasa under Memo No. 426 dated 25.4.1998, alleging that TISCO was found involved in mining operations under protected forest Noamundi on 13.4.1998, whereas, temporary working permission granted to the TISCO by the Government of India, had already expired on 12.4.1998 and accordingly, TISCO had committed offence under Section 33 (c) of the Indian Forest Act and Section 2 (ii) of the Forest (Conservation) Act. On the basis of the prosecution report submitted by the Forest Officials, C/3 Case No. 16 of 1998 was instituted, wherein by order dated 28.4.1998, passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chaibasa, cognizance was taken against the petitioners, being the officials of the TISCO, under Section 33 (c) of the Indian Forest Act and Section 2 (ii) of the Forest (Conservation) Act. (c). Cr. Misc. No. 7394 of 2000 (R) This application has been filed for quashing the prosecution against the petitioners in C/3 Case No. 27 of 1999, which was instituted on the basis of the prosecution report sent to the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chaibasa, under Memo No. 153 dated 11.2.1999, alleging that on 4.2.1999 TISCO was found involved in mining operations in Noamundi, Sarbil, Mahundi and Korwa protected forests, even though the temporary working permission granted by the Government of India had expired on 11.10.1998. On the basis of the prosecution report, C/3 Case No. 27 of 1999 was instituted against the petitioners, being the officials of the TISCO, and cognizance was taken against them for the offence under Sections 2(ii), 3-A, 3-B of the Forest (Conservation) Act and Section 33 (c) of the Indian Forest Act. (d). Cr. Misc. No. 8978 of 2000(R) This application has been filed for quashing the criminal prosecution in C/3 Case No. 83 of 1996, then pending in the Court of Shri Ashok Kumar, Judicial Magistrate, Chaibasa, which was instituted on the basis of the prosecution report forwarded to the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chaibasa, under Memo No. 944 dated 5.7.1996, wherein, it was alleged that on 13.12.1995, TISCO was found felling the trees for mining purpose in Noamundi protected forest. On the basis of the said prosecution report, C/3 Case No. 83 of 1996 was instituted and cognizance was taken by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chaibasa, by order dated 30.7.1996 for the offence under Section 33 of the Indian Forest Act against these petitioners, being the officials of the TISCO.
(3.) It is an admitted fact that TISCO was a lessee for carrying on the mining operations in the said protected forests. However, in the intervening period, as there was no temporary working permission by the Government of India, in favour of TISCO and mining operations were found to be continued by the TISCO, the cases were instituted against the officials of the TISCO, but in the prosecution reports, it is only mentioned that TISCO was found carrying out the mining operations, even though the temporary working permission had expired on the date of occurrence. It is stated in these applications that TISCO had filed writ petitions for restraining the forest department from interfering in the mining operations, wherein, the High Court had directed the TISCO to approach the Central Government and had dismissed the writ petition. TISCO had also approached the Central Government on 17.3.1998 and had also filed S.L.P. in the Supreme Court against the order passed by the High Court in the writ petition. It appears that in SLA (Civil ) No. 7054 of 1998, by order dated 24.4.1998, status quo was ordered to be maintained till the Central Government took any decision in the matter. The said order has been brought on record as Annexure 3 Srs. in the application. It also appears that on 28.4.1998, extension of the temporary working permission over already broken area was granted by the Central Government in favour of the TISCO for a period of six months.;