Ganapati and ors. Vs. the State of Mysore

Ganapati and ors. vs The State of Mysore

Type Court Judgment Court Karnataka Decided Mar 19, 1971

~3 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/377694

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/377694
Court: Karnataka High Court
Judge: M. Santhosh, J.
Decided On: Mar 19, 1971
Subject: Criminal

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

- MINES AND MINERALS (REGULATION AND DEVELOPMENT) ACT (67 OF 1957) Section 5 & 11(3) & Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980, Section 2 & Mineral Concession Rules, 1960, Rule 630-A: [P.D. Dinakaran, C.J.& V.G. Sabhahit,J] Restriction on grant of prospecting licenses or mining leases Restriction on de-reservation of fores...

Key legal issue: Criminal

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Ganapati and ors.

Respondent

The State of Mysore

Legal References

Reported In: 1972CriLJ417

Excerpt

.....public interest litigation petitioners sought to direct respondents not to issue any mining leases in respect of iron ore, until all existing steel industries are issued captive mining leases; to grant captive mining leases to steel manufacturing industries in proportion to their respective licensed capacity on preferential basis; etc.- held, thus section 11(3)(d) of the mmdr act specifically contemplates top take into consideration the investment which the applicants propose to make in the mines and the industries based on minerals; and rule 35 of the m.c rules provides for preferential rights of certain persons, considering the end use of the mineral by them. while mining as a stand alone industry cannot be ignored, the contention of the petitioner based on the policy decision of the central and state government that preference should be given to captive mining while granting mining lease, also deserves due consideration. the schedule of time prescribed under the rule 63-a of the m.c rules is also required to be strictly adhered to, as the state is bound by such time schedule in deciding the applications for grant of mining lease. it is true that no specific time limitation is given for granting approval by the central government, but that does not mean that the central government could take its own sweet time, which would be unreasonable and arbitrary, because any such delay would affect the economic growth of the state. in that view of the matter, there is no error or illegality on the part of the petitioner in approaching high court for seeking appropriate direction to both central and state government to process the applications in accordance with the policy decision taken by them, as the petitioner is entitled to seek such relief based on legitimate expectation. therefore, (i) the proposed end use of the minerals by the applicant; and (ii) the captive consumption and value addition of minerals, should be the prime criteria for granting mining..........learned magistrate subsequently on the same day on an application said to have been filed by the person who had given a complaint to the police, cancelled the order of bail without hearing the accused behind their back and issued non-baillable warrant.3. there is force in the contention of the learned counsel. the learned magistrate seems to have acted in an extraordinary manner. the order sheet discloses that on 9-11-1970. the petitioners-accused who had been released on bail were present in court and the case was adjourned to 19-11-1970. subsequently, on the same day on an application given on behalf of the complainant, the learned magistrate without notice to the accused and behind their back passed the impugned order cancelling the bail granted to the petitioner-accused. not only did he cancel the bail -granted to the petitioners-accused but he also issued non-baillable warrants against the accused who had appeared in court on the very same day. another peculiar feature of this case is that though he had adjourned the case to 19-11-1970. the learned magistrate seems to have advanced the case and posted it to 17-11-1970. the impugned order passed by the learned magistrate cannot at all be justified. once the police had filed a charge sheet in the case, the magistrate was not at all justified in entertaining any petition filed on behalf of the private complainant and that too acting upon it. behind the back of the accused and cancelling the bail granted to the petitioners-accused.4. the learned magistrate has failed to act in judicial manner. i have therefore no hesitation in setting aside the impugned order passed by the learned magistrate.5. in the result, the revision petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 9-11-1970 passed by the learned magistrate. alland. in c. c. no. 285 of 1970 cancelling the bail granted to the petitioners-accused is set aside.

Full Judgment

ORDER

M. Santhosh, J.

1. The five petitioners before this Court are accused in the court of the J. M. F. C., at Alland. A charge sheet was filed by the Police Norona against the petitioners before the said Magistrate alleging that they had committed offences under Sections 147. 148. 149. 447 and 307 I. P. C. On 28-10-1970 all these petitioners were produced before the learned Magistrate and he released all the petitioners on bail and thereafter posted the case for hearing to 9-11-1970. On 9-11-1970. all the five petitioners appeared before the court and thereafter the case, as shown in the order sheet was adjourned to 19-11-1970-Later on the very day i. e. 9-11-1970. the learned Magistrate passed the impugned order which reads as follows:

Heard in open court. Perused the affidavits and records. Bail cancelled. Issue non-baillable warrant to accused. Call on 17/11.

Sd/- J. M. F. C.

This order dated 9-11-1970 passed by the learned Magistrate is challenged in this revision petition.

2. Sri Santhosh Hegde. the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners has contended that it is not open to the learned Magistrate to take cognizance of any application filed by a private person and take action against the accused on the strength of it. when the charge sheet against the accused has been filed by the police. It is also pointed out that the learned Magistrate having once granted bail to the accused, cannot cancel bail, behind the back of the accused without hearing them or giving them opportunity of being heard. The accused had appeared in court on 9-11-1970 and after the case had been adjoined to 19-11-1970. the learned Magistrate subsequently on the same day on an application said to have been filed by the person who had given a complaint to the police, cancelled the order of bail without hearing the accused behind their back and issued non-baillable warrant.

3. There is force in the contention of the learned Counsel. The learned Magistrate seems to have acted in an extraordinary manner. The order sheet discloses that on 9-11-1970. the petitioners-accused who had been released on bail were present in court and the case was adjourned to 19-11-1970. Subsequently, on the same day on an application given on behalf of the complainant, the learned Magistrate without notice to the accused and behind their back passed the impugned order cancelling the bail granted to the petitioner-accused. Not only did he cancel the bail -granted to the petitioners-accused but he also issued non-baillable warrants against the accused who had appeared in court on the very same day. Another peculiar feature of this case is that though he had adjourned the case to 19-11-1970. the learned Magistrate seems to have advanced the case and posted it to 17-11-1970. the impugned order passed by the learned Magistrate cannot at all be justified. Once the police had filed a charge sheet in the case, the Magistrate was not at all justified in entertaining any petition filed on behalf of the private complainant and that too acting upon it. behind the back of the accused and cancelling the bail granted to the petitioners-accused.

4. The learned Magistrate has failed to act in judicial manner. I have therefore no hesitation in setting aside the impugned order passed by the learned Magistrate.

5. In the result, the revision petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 9-11-1970 passed by the learned Magistrate. Alland. in C. C. No. 285 of 1970 cancelling the bail granted to the petitioners-accused is set aside.

Same Court & Year Karnataka · 1971 Same Parties Ganapati and ors. vs The State of Mysore Same Subject Criminal Same Judge M. Santhosh, J.

Criminal