T mm await? §z IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (C) NO. £933?— OF 2010 / M/s Maruti Clean Coa! & Power Limited, a registered firm duly registered under the relevant provisions of the Indian Companies Act, 1956, having its registered office at Vidya Nagar,. Biiaspur (C.G.) through its Director Shri Ram Awtar Agarwai, son of Late Shri J.D. Agarwai, aged about 46 i years,‘ resident of Vidya Nagar, Biiaspur (CG) PETITIONER K/ l.State of Chhattisgarh, through the Secretary, Department of Revenue, y,XD.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur. 2. The Additionai District Magistrate, Korba, District Korba (CG) 3. The Sub Divisional Officer, Korba, District i Kinrba (CG) 4.South Eastern Coalfields RESPONDENTS x at— (CG) PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA Limited, through the Chief General .Manager, South Eastern Coalfields Limited, Dipka Area, Dipka, District Korba (CG) /, 5.The Chief Generai Manager, South Eastern 1%; Coalfields Limited, Dipka Area, Dipka, District Korba f (CG) 6. Pratap Das, son of Krishan Chand Das, Caste—Karan, Up- Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat Chainpur resident of Village Chainpur-Sirki Camp, Tehsil Pali, District Korba @ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT ILA FUR Sg‘ng!e Bench: Han’b‘e Shri Justice Bastian: Kumar Mishra I 1 I I J r f r v J J f ’ I \ \ { ‘ x r { \ \ Shn B P Shanna, counsel foi the yemwner Na Shn 1 may ta 3 Dwwed: Deputy Govt Advocate for the State/respondents Dr N K ShuHa, Samar Advocate With Shn 8haiiendra Shukla ieafned w: Pank j Agrawai teamed munse: appeanng for respondent No ' WRITW PETfTiGN UNDER ARTICLE 226I22? OF THE CONS ITUTIGN OF caunse} appearmg for respondents Na 4 & 5 Weaveator ORAL OR ER (29.10.2016) Léamed caunSel for the petitiener wcu‘d submit that the procaeding undér Section 133 0f CFPC ha$ been initiated by the Atidmonat District MawStraie Karba an an apptwatmn mmmd by respondent No 6 who i$ UMarpanch of Gram Panchayat, Chainpur. counsei for the petitioner the subject tand on which there is a diteh I pit bebnge to SECL and therefere primfacie the Additienat Dietrict Magistrate has no 3unsdlctron to initiate proceedings under Section 133 0f Cr P C which re applrcable when the: e Is nureance ef pubhc land Dr N K Shukta learned Senior Advocate appearing for SECL has atse submrtted that the subject tend has been acqurred under the coat Bearing Area (Acqursrhen 8: Development Act) 1957 and the same belongs Awarding to the (earned (2) to and is veeted m 3ECL ’H Writ Petition gCi No. 6g87 i 2010 PETiTiONER Versus f Mis Maruti Clean Coal & Powe¢ Limited RESPONDENTS State of Chhattisgarh arid othem, (3) Shri BP. Shanna; ieamed cwnsei for the petitioner when confronted with the question that the order impugned in this petition an be (thaiiengeé baiare Se$sion$ Court unn'er Sectian 397 read with Section 399 of Cr.P.C. and the petitinner haS an aiternative remedy and furtmr that the SECL has atready fried a revisian, wnutd make two folds submission iirstty he wotxtd submit that he waS not a party before the Additionat District Magistrate and thus his revision may not be entertained by the Sessions Court andsecondty in the revision preferred by the SECL also he has net been made a party, ‘ though from the documents annexed with the writ petition it woutd appear §' that the subject construction has been made by the SECL with the assistanoe of the'petitioner and it is the petitioner who is suffering adverseiy . (4) it is atso submitted by him that the authority has acted maiafideiy on the face of order of status-quo passed by the Hon‘bte Supreme Court in S.L.F. (Civii) No. 2127772010 on 1739-2010 and thus the instant petition is maintainabie as this Court has power under Artiste 227 of the Constitution of india to entertain this‘petition when the order has been passed in vioiation of I principies of naturat justice. I it is aiso submitted by him that in view of the iaw taiddown by the Hon'bie Supreme Court in the matter of CA. Avafaohan Vs. C.V. Srinivasan reported in (1996) 7 SCC 71 and since the teamed Additionai District Magistrate has not made any enquiry or investigation before passing the frnai order on 09-09-2010 and that too behind the back of the petitioner, the instant petition before this Court is i maintainabie. Accordingto him the Coat Washery estabiished by the ‘petitioner is operationai on the strength of order passed by’the Hon'bte iSupreme Court in the matter of Mandi Clean Coal and Power Limited Vs. ‘Alok Nigam and another reported in (2010} 5 SCC 434 directing SECL to / :‘start suppiy of coat and issue transit passidelivery orders through the ex ‘ \ i K ‘0 @ ’U washery cf the petitioner on behaif of iinked and other customets based on instmctionyrequm from them, and thus if the intérference is not made, the Additima‘ Distfict Magistrate may pruceed to execute the impugned order and create hurdle in the operation of the waehew by removing the construction made by SECL with the assistance of petitioner which shail uttirnateiy make teat washery non-functionai, in vioiation of order of status- quo granted by the Hon'bie supreme Court on 17-09-2010 and the eariier order directing the SECL to suppty coal. (5) Shri Pankaj Shrivastava, teamed counset appearing for respondent No. 6 vehementty opposes the prayer and submits that in View of existence of atternative femedy the instant petition is not maintainabie. He wouid submit that the construction has been made to titt up a pond which is not in ‘ public interest and thus the petitioner is not emitted tor tnduigence. (6) Dr. Nit. Shukta, teamed Senior Counsel appearing tor'SECL wouid submit that the subject tand belongs to 3ECL and that no pond was ever constructed by the SECL though this fact is contested by the respondent No. 6 by drawing attention of the Court to Annexure tl3 tited with me intervention apptication. According to Dr. shukta the SECL has already hled a Criminai Revision before the 5essions Court at Korba and the order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court to supply coat to the petitioner as also the order of status-duo is being obeyed. t7) After hearing teamed counset for the parties, this Court is of the lopinion that the instant peh'tion is not maintainabte as the petitioner has t atternative remedy to chatlenge the order passed‘by the Additionat District l: Magistrate by nting a revision before the’Sessions Judge, Korba. shn Pankaj : Shrivastava, teamed counsel appearing for respondent No. 6 has no l l . q / abjection if the petitioner prefers revision petition before the Sessioris Court. however in View of the order pasoed by the Hon’bie Supreme Court in the mattar of Marati Ciean Goa! and Power Limited Vs. Alok Nr’gam and another reported in (20w) 5 SCC 434 directing suppiy of the ooai to the petitioner and the order of Status-qua passed in SLP (Civii) No. 212??f2019 and in View of the assertion made by the SECL that the subiect construction is on the iand beionging to SECL and not on Government iand or pubiie iand, the operation of the impugned order is etayed tor a period of six weeks from today enahting the petitioner to file a Criminal Revision before the jurisdictional Sessions Court and make prayer for grant of interim relief in the said revision. it is expected of the Sessions Court that if an application for grant of stayiinterirn reiief is moved before it, the same shail be disposed of in accordance with ia‘w before the expiry of period of six weeks. (8) With this observation. the instant petition stands disposed of. Certified copy today. Sdl- Prashant Kumar Mishra Judge