1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W. P. (C) No. 3336 of 2015 M/S CORPORATE ISPAT ALLOYS LIMITED, HAVING ITS UNIT AT TOTATALWADI, P.O. BURUDIH, DISTRICT SARAIKELA KHARSAWAN, JHARKHAND THROUGH ITS CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER CUM AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY, SRI RAVINDRA KUMAR SINGH, SON OF SRI SUSHIL SINGH, RESIDENT OF D 2, COLONY AREA, ABHIJEET GROUP, VILLAGE TOTATALWARI, P.O. BURUDIH, P.S. KHARSAWAN, TOWN & DISTRICT SARAIKELA KHARSAWAN PETITIONER VERSUS 1. THE STATE OF JHARKHAND 2. THE SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRIES, HAVING ITS OFFICE AT NEPAL HOUSE, 3RD FLOOR, KUSAI, P.O. & P.S. DORANDA, TOWN & DISTRICT RANCHI 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONR, SARAIKELA KHARSAWAN 3. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, SARAIKELA KHARSAWAN... RESPONDENTS CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR FOR THE PETITIONER : MR. N.K. PASARI, ADV FOR THE RESPONDENTS : MR. L.C.N. SHAHDEO, GP IV 4/ Dated: 14 th January, 2016 Per SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR, J. I.A. No. 5177 of 2015 This application has been filed seeking permission to impugne letter dated 21.03.2015. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that inadvertently the said letter was not impugned in the writ petition though, the grievance of the petitioner is, in fact, directed against the authority of the State under which the said letter has been issued.
2 3. The learned counsel for the respondent State opposes the application for amendment. 4. A perusal of the writ petition discloses that the petitioner is aggrieved because it has not been permitted to sell the scrap materials lying within its factory premises. Letter dated 21.03.2015 is the order by which the petitioner was directed to furnish certain informations. I find that all foundational facts for challenging order dated 21.03.2015 have been laid in the writ petition. Considering the aforesaid facts, I am of the opinion that if the petitioner is permitted to challenge order dated 21.03.2015, it would not cause prejudice to the respondent State. Accordingly, I.A. No.5177 of 2015 is allowed. W. P. (C) No. 3336 of 2015 5. In the writ petition, the petitioner has sought a direction upon the respondent State to permit the petitioner to lift the scrap materials lying within its factory. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner alleging arbitrariness and questioning the authority of the respondent State in not permitting the petitioner Company to sell the scrap materials from its factory premises, submits that registration of a criminal case or pendency of the certificate case cannot be a ground not to permit the petitioner to sell its properties. It is contended that the petitioner is the lawful owner of the scrap materials lying within its factory premises and therefore, without the authority of law, the
3 respondent State cannot restrain the petitioner from selling its own properties. 7. The learned counsel for the respondent State of Jharkhand resisting the writ petition submits that in view of the allegation in the criminal case lodged against the petitioner, the petitioner Company has been restrained from lifting the scrap materials from its factory premises. It is contended that the petitioner is a defaulter and without permission of the competent Court/Certificate Officer, the petitioner cannot be permitted to lift the scrap materials lying within its factory premises. 8. Before adverting to the rival contentions, I proceed to examine the validity of letter dated 21.03.2015. A perusal of the said letter discloses that the Chief Executive Officer of the Abhijeet Group has been directed to furnish certain informations. It appears that noticing closure of the Company and transportation of certain materials without producing requisite order, the Sub Inspector of Police sought production of work order/demand order and other informations. It further appears that the Company was requested to furnish written request before transporting any material outside the factory. The petitioner, in my opinion, cannot throw a challenge to the direction seeking informations as noticed in letter dated 21.03.2015. In the present proceeding, the petitioner has admitted that FIR being, Saraikela Kharsawan P.S. Case No.11 of 2015 has been lodged against it. The said report was lodged on the
4 allegation that it was trying to sell the articles removed from its factory, illegally. It is also a matter of record that the Central Bureau of Investigation has lodged a criminal case against the Group company. The learned counsel for the petitioner however submits that investigation against the company has been closed. The winding up proceeding vide C.P. No. 1130 of 2014 is pending before the Hon'ble Kolkata High Court and in the said proceeding, an order has been passed restraining the Company to deal with and encumbering or alienating its assets and properties without prior leave of the Court. It is stated that some complains were made by the workers and the land owners alleging that the Abhijit Group of Company is trying to dispose of the Company's assets, illegally. In the counter affidavit, the respondents have asserted that in the representation to the Director General of Police, the Company did not disclose the true facts and it never lodged a theft report. It also appears that on 21.07.2014 the Certificate Officer has issued notice for recovery of Rs.33,86,023/ and the petitioner Company has been prohibited from alienating the immovable property or any part of it by sale, gift, mortgage or otherwise. From the counter affidavit, it further appears that in view of the serious allegations against the petitioner Company, an enquiry was conducted and a detail report was submitted on 06.07.2015, which discloses that the petitioner Company is trying to dispose of its assets illegally. The assertions made in the writ petition are the questions of facts which
5 cannot be conclusively decided in the present proceeding. Considering the pendency of the criminal case and orders passed in the certificate proceeding and in C.P. No.1130 of 2014, the prayer seeking a direction upon the respondent Authority to permit the petitioner to lift the scrap materials lying within its factory premises cannot be granted. In view of the nature of informations sought through letter dated 21.03.2015, challenge to the said letter also fails. 9. The writ petition stands dismissed. (Shree Chandrashekhar, J.) R.K.