- (1.) Heard Mr. Kalyan Roy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Rahul Kumar Singh, learned J.C. to S.C. (L&C) for the respondents.
(2.) In this application, the petitioner has prayed for a direction upon the respondents to remove the lock from the factory gate which was put in connection with Gua (Barajamda) P.S. Case No. 09 of 2014 (G.R. No. 99 of 2014).
(3.) It has been submitted by learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that the petitioner's factory was registered under the Commercial Taxes Department, Jharkhand and in 2009 it was also granted Emission Consent Order under the provisions of the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner had the necessary requisites/ requirements granted by the authority to run the factory premises, but subsequently on account of a raid conducted by the police, a case was instituted against the petitioner for the offences punishable u/s 414, 420, 467, 468 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code, Rule 7,8 and 9 of the Jharkhand Mineral Dealer's Rules, 2007; Section 38/41 of the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981. Learned counsel further submits that neither under the provisions under the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act (MMDR Act for short) nor under the provisions of Jharkhand Mineral Dealer's Rules, 2007 nor under the provisions of the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981, the Assistant Sub Inspector of Police has power to make search and seizure under the factory premises and in absence of necessary authorization to the informant, he could not have by any stretch of imagination supposed to make a raid in the factory premises and put a lock on the gate of the factory premises. Learned counsel further submits that on account of lock having been put on the gate of the factory premises, the petitioner is subjected to huge loss and now as charge-sheet has also been submitted in the present case, no fruitful purpose will be served in keeping the factory premises locked. It has also been submitted that the petitioner has also preferred a separate application before this Court being Cr.M.P. No. 1651 of 2014 for quashing the entire criminal proceeding in connection with this case, which is still pending.;