SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2000 Supreme(MP) 1133

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH (JABALPUR)
Dipak Misra, J.
Harish Arora
Vs.
District Magistrate, Shahdol and others
Writ Petition No. 5962/2000
Decided On: 14.12.2000

Advocates appeared:
For Appellant/Petitioner/Plaintiff: Shri P.N. Pathak, Adv.
For Respondents/Defendant: Shri Alok Agrawal, Panel Lawyer

The main legal point established in the judgment is that orders under Section 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure are intended to meet an emergent situation and cannot be permanent or semi-permanent in nature. The judgment emphasized that repetitive orders under Section 144 would amount to an abuse of power.

Headnote:

Certiorari - Coal Trading - Section 144 of Code of Criminal Procedure - [Section 144 of Cr.P.C.] - The court discussed the provisions of Section 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, emphasizing that the order under this section is intended to meet an emergent situation and cannot be permanent or semi-permanent in nature. The court referred to the case of Acharya Jagdishwaranand Avadhuta etc. Vs. Commissioner of Police, Calcutta and another AIR 1984 SC 51, which clarified that repetitive orders under Section 144 would amount to an abuse of power and that the section does not contemplate repetitive orders. The court quashed the orders passed under Section 144 but allowed the District Magistrate to proceed in accordance with the law to meet the situation, keeping in view the principles laid down by the Apex Court.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner, engaged in coal trading and transportation, sought quashment of prohibitory orders issued under Section 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which affected the storage and transport of coal. The petitioner argued that the orders were passed without applying the mind and were causing hardship to genuine and legal coal traders.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the orders passed under Section 144 were not in accordance with the law and were semi-permanent in nature, contrary to the intended purpose of Section 144 to meet an emergent situation. The court quashed the orders but allowed the District Magistrate to proceed in accordance with the law to meet the situation.

Issues: The issues revolved around the validity of the prohibitory orders issued under Section 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the impact of these orders on genuine and legal coal traders, and the appropriateness of the District Magistrate's actions in issuing such orders.

Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the interpretation of Section 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the principles laid down in the case of Acharya Jagdishwaranand Avadhuta etc. Vs. Commissioner of Police, Calcutta and another AIR 1984 SC 51, which clarified that orders under Section 144 cannot be permanent or semi-permanent in nature and that repetitive orders would amount to an abuse of power.

Final Decision: The court allowed the writ petition, quashed the orders passed under Section 144, and directed the District Magistrate to proceed in accordance with the law to meet the situation, keeping in view the principles laid down by the Apex Court.

ORDER

Dipak Misra, J.

1. Invoking the extra-ordinary jurisdiction of this Court the petitioner has prayed for issue of writ of Certiorari for quashment of orders contained in Annexures P-13 to P-17.

2. The facts as have been unfolded are that the petitioner is engaged in the business of Coal Trading and Coal Transportation under valid delivery orders issued by the authorities of the South Eastern Coalfields Limited, Bilaspur. It is putforth that he deals in his own name and transports coals for various undertakings under valid delivery orders to various far off places throughout India. Copies of authority for Transport of coal by Shipra Industries, Shivam Coal Brigget Udoy, Tripti Industries and Adhunik Brigget Industry have been brought on record as Annexures P-3 to P-6. For transporting Transit Passes are issued by the Mining Officer, Shahdol. As per arrangement the coal is to be lifted from the Coal Mines thereafter to be transported to various far off places. It is setforth in the petition that due to shortage of transport facilities like trucks the petitioner has to make arrangement for temporary storage and dumping of the coal before it reaches its proper destination. There are number of coal mines near Burhar Town and approximately 1000 tonnes of coal are lifted from various coalfields everyday. For lifting of coal the trucks are required to wait in queue for several days at times. In order to ensure timely lifting of coal the petitioner has engaged number of dumpers for short distance transport of coal. The petitioner has 3,282 hectare area of plot in village Piparia Patwari Halka No. 29, Kotma, District Shahdol which is situated at a distance of 35 kms. away from Burhar. There is no coalmine around this plot nor is there any possibility of surface coalmining around the said area. The Sone river belt where surface coal mining is apprehended is nearly 45 kms. away from this plot. As pleaded by the petitioner for smooth and convenient running of his coal trading and transportation business he has to temporarily dump and store the coal on this plot before trucks for their transportation to proper destination could be arranged. It is averred that the Government of India, Ministry of Coal for the purpose of control and regulation of sale of coal from different mines/collieries has framed Colliery Control Order. There arc provisions for allotment of coal. The person who is allotted coal is required to maintain a record containing particulars i.e. quantity of coal allotted of each grade and size, quantity consumed of each grade and size and the purpose for which it is consumed. Thus there are various guidelines to control the same. While the petitioner was smoothly carrying his trading the respondent No. 1 under certain apprehension started issuing prohibitory orders under Section 144 of Code of Criminal Procedure for imposing restrictions on dumping, storage and transport of the coal. As it resulted in hardship to genuine and legal coal traders they represented to the State Government, and eventually, a resolution was brought as contained in Annexure P-11 on 21-11-1995 which stipulates that instead of passing prohibitory orders, flying squad may be constituted to check illegal trade in coal. In spite of aforesaid resolution the prohibitory orders were continued to be passed by the respondent No. 1. Being dissatisfied the petitioner approached this Court assailing the aforesaid prohibitory orders in W.P. No. 670/96. This Court by order dated 12-3-96 directed for stay of operation of impugned prohibitory orders. As life of prohibitory order which was stayed by this Court was for two months, the District Magistrate continued to pass the same orders. The said orders have been brought on record as Annexures P-13 to P-17 and prayer has been made for quashment of the same. It is averred in the writ petition that provision of Section 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is for meeting the emergency Situation and law and order, therefo



















Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top