B.N. Khirwal Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Jharkhand and ors. - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
- motor vehicles act, 1988[c.a.no.59/1988] section 166; [a.k. patnaik, cj, a.k. gohil & s. samvatsar, jj] application for compensation for personal injury death of injured claimant subsequently for some other reasons held, claim for personal injury will abate on the death of claimant. claim will not survive to his legal representative except as regards claim for pecuniary loss to estate of claimant.orderm.y. eqbal, j.1. heard mr. m.k. dey, learned counsel for the petitioner and mr. s.b. gadodia, learned advocate general.2. in this writ application the petitioner seeks issuance of a writ directing the respondents to forthwith restore possession of mining lease hold area from where the petitioner has been allegedly dispossessed by respondent nos. 2 and 3 namely, the superintendent of police, singhbhum (west) chaibasa and the officer in charge, noamundi police station.3. petitioner's case is that respondent nos. 5 and 6 who are the mining lessees, transferred the mining lease of iron ore mine in favour of the petitioner sometimes in 1999 and the petitioner has been operating and developing the mine. all of a sudden respondent nos. 5 and 6 lodged fir and asked the police for dispossessing the petitioner from the lease hold area.4. respondent-state filed counter-affidavit wherein it is stated that the respondents, being the government servants have shown no interest in the matter of mining lease or have no concern in the matter of alleged lease dispute between the writ petitioner and respondent no. 5. the said respondents have categorically denied and disputed the allegation that they are, in any way, involved in dispossessing the petitioner from the lease hold area. it has also come on record that a suit for injunction was also filed by the petitioner.5. after considering the affidavits filed by the parties, prima facie, i do not find any conclusive material which shows that the respondents, who are government servants, are in any way involved in disposses sing the petitioner from the lease hold premises. 6. in that view of the matter this court cannot exercise extra ordinary jurisdiction under article 226 of the constitution for granting any relief to the petitioner. this application is, accordingly, dismissed. how ever, dismissal of this writ application will not come in the way of the petitioner to move appropriate forum for redressal of its grievance.

Judgment:
ORDER

M.Y. Eqbal, J.

1. Heard Mr. M.K. Dey, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. S.B. Gadodia, learned Advocate General.

2. In this writ application the petitioner seeks issuance of a writ directing the respondents to forthwith restore possession of mining lease hold area from where the petitioner has been allegedly dispossessed by respondent Nos. 2 and 3 namely, the Superintendent of Police, Singhbhum (West) Chaibasa and the Officer in charge, Noamundi police station.

3. Petitioner's case is that respondent Nos. 5 and 6 who are the mining lessees, transferred the mining lease of iron ore mine in favour of the petitioner sometimes in 1999 and the petitioner has been operating and developing the mine. All of a sudden respondent Nos. 5 and 6 lodged FIR and asked the police for dispossessing the petitioner from the lease hold area.

4. Respondent-State filed counter-affidavit wherein it is stated that the respondents, being the Government servants have shown no interest in the matter of mining lease or have no concern in the matter of alleged lease dispute between the writ petitioner and respondent No. 5. The said respondents have categorically denied and disputed the allegation that they are, in any way, involved in dispossessing the petitioner from the lease hold area. It has also come on record that a suit for injunction was also filed by the petitioner.

5. After considering the affidavits filed by the parties, prima facie, I do not find any conclusive material which shows that the respondents, who are Government servants, are in any way involved in disposses sing the petitioner from the lease hold premises.

6. In that view of the matter this Court cannot exercise extra ordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution for granting any relief to the petitioner. This application is, accordingly, dismissed. How ever, dismissal of this writ application will not come in the way of the petitioner to move appropriate forum for redressal of its grievance.