Ms Balaji Coal Enterprises Through Its Proprietor Manoj Kumar Agarwal vs. The State Of Jharkhand
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, M/s. Balaji Coal Enterprises, a proprietorship firm, sought a writ of mandamus to allow it to carry on its coal trade and sell stocked coal (5000 MT steam coal & 1231 MT hard coke) from its factory premises. The petitioner possessed a factory license, consent to operate from the Pollution Control Board, a mineral dealer registration, and a GST registration. The coal was purchased between March 12, 2019, and June 25, 2019, from Central Coalfields Limited under valid sale orders pursuant to e-auctions. However, respondent no. 4, the Officer-in-charge of Kuju O.P., Ramgarh, was allegedly preventing the lawful sale of this coal. The petitioner had previously represented to respondent no. 3, the Superintendent of Police, Ramgarh, requesting the deputation of a survey officer for transparent sale, but received no response, leading to the filing of the writ petition.
Held
The Court held that while the respondents' apprehension regarding the potential for illegal coal trade was understandable, the petitioner should not be hindered from lawfully disposing of coal purchased legally and stocked in its factory premises. The Court found no justification for directing the petitioner to bear the cost of police force deployment. Consequently, the writ petition was disposed of with specific directions. Respondent no. 3 was directed to depute a Deputy Superintendent of Police to supervise the disposal of the stocked coal. A CCTV camera was to be installed at the petitioner's factory premises at the cost of the district administration within 15 days for surveillance during the removal/disposal period. The duty of the police force was to be confined until the removal of the stock. The petitioner was directed to lawfully remove the coal within the shortest possible time. The CCTV camera was to be uninstalled after the removal of the stock.
Key Issues
1. Whether the petitioner should be allowed to carry on its coal trade and sell the stocked coal from its factory premises, considering the respondents' apprehension of illegal coal trade? (Question of law and fact, relating to the petitioner's right to conduct lawful business and the respondents' duty to prevent illegal activities). Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner contended that it possessed all necessary licenses and registrations, including GST, and had purchased the coal lawfully. Therefore, it should not be prevented from selling its legally acquired stock. The petitioner sought directions to restrain unlawful hindrance and allow the lawful sale of coal. Respondents' arguments: Respondent no. 3, in its counter affidavit, stated that the petitioner was accused of illegal coal trade. It argued that the sale of stocked coal should only be permitted with the deployment of police force and a magistrate to prevent the mixing of legally purchased coal with illegal coal. The respondent agreed to the sale if conducted in the presence of a magistrate and sufficient police force, under CCTV surveillance, with the petitioner bearing the cost of police deployment.
Sections Cited
None explicitly discussed or named in the judgment, beyond general references to lawful trade and business operations.
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(C) No.3361 of 2019 With I.A. No.4857 of 2020 ----- M/s. Balaji Coal Enterprises
.......... Petitioner. -Versus-
The State of Jharkhand
Secretary, Home Department, having office at Nepal House, Doranda, Ranchi.
Superintendent of Police, Ramgarh.
Officer-in-charge, Kuju O.P., District Ramgarh.
.......... Respondents. ----- CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR ----- For the Petitioner : Mr. Kalyan Roy, Advocate For the State : Mr. Gaurav Abhishek, A.C. to A.G.
----- Order No.03
Date: 05.10.2020
This case is taken up through video conferencing.
The present writ petition has been filed for issuance of direction upon the respondents to allow the petitioner to carry on coal trade from its factory premises and restrain them from causing any unlawful hindrance in selling the coal stocked there. Further prayer has been made for issuance of direction upon the respondents to allow the petitioner to make lawful sale of coal stocked (5000 M.T. steam coal & 1231 MT hard coke) in its factory premises.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is a proprietorship firm. The petitioner has a factory licence issued by the Department of Labour, Employment, Training and Skill Development, Government of Jharkhand and the said licence is valid up to 31st December, 2023. The petitioner has been granted consent to operate by the Jharkhand State Pollution Control Board vide letter dated 1st June, 2019. It is also a registered mineral dealer, which would be evident from the certificate of registration issued in Form ‘B’ by the Department of Mines and Geology, Government of Jharkhand. The petitioner has also GST registration certificate, issued by the competent authority in its favour. It is further submitted that the petitioner had purchased 5000 MT (approx.) of steam coal and 1231 MT (approx.) of hard coke between the period from 12th March, 2019 to 25th June, 2019 from the Central Coalfields Limited under valid sale order pursuant to e-auction scheme of the said coal company.
-2- However, the respondent no.4 has been arbitrarily preventing the petitioner from making lawful sale of the said stocked coal from its factory premises. The petitioner represented before the respondent no.3 on 31st May, 2019, requesting, inter alia, to depute a survey officer so that it may sell the said coal from its factory premises in a transparent manner, however, the same has not yet been responded, which has compelled the petitioner to file the present writ petition.
A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondent no.3, stating, inter alia, that the petitioner has been made accused for committing several offences in connection with illegal trade of coal and as such it should not be allowed to sell the coal stocked at the factory premises without deploying police force and a magistrate so as to avoid any possibility of mixing of legally purchased coal with illegal coal. It has, however, been stated in the said counter affidavit that the respondent no.3 has no issue if the petitioner lifts stocked coal in presence of a magistrate and sufficient police force and the entire process should be completed within the shortest possible time under CCTV surveillance. The cost of police force should also be borne by the petitioner.
Having heard learned counsel for the parties and considering the stand taken by the respondent no.3 in the counter affidavit, it appears that the said respondent has apprehension that the petitioner in the garb of seeking permission to sell the aforesaid stocked coal in its factory premises may also sell illegal coal and hence, the petitioner may be permitted to sell the said coal from its factory premises under the supervision of a magistrate as well in presence of sufficient police force and the entire process of removal of the said stocked coal from its factory premises should be done within the shortest possible time under CCTV surveillance. Though I find substance in the said stand taken by the respondent no.3, yet it is also observed that if the petitioner has purchased coal in a lawful manner which has been stocked in its factory premises, the local administration/police should not put any hindrance in lawful disposal of the same by it. I also do not find any justification in the stand of the respondent no.3 that the petitioner itself may be directed to bear the cost of deployment of police force.
-3-
Thus, keeping in view the aforesaid apprehension raised by the respondent no.3, the present writ petition is disposed of directing the said respondent to depute a police officer in the factory premises of the petitioner, having rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police, specially for the purpose of supervising the disposal of aforesaid coal stocked there. The respondent no.3 shall also get a CCTV Camera installed at appropriate place in the factory premises of the petitioner within a period of 15 days from the date of the order at the cost of the district administration to have the surveillance during the period of removal/disposal of the said stock of coal.
It is made clear that the petitioner shall lawfully remove the said coal within the shortest possible time and after removal of the same, the respondent no.3 shall get CCTV Camera uninstalled from the petitioner’s factory premises. The duty of the Deputy Superintendent of Police and the police force shall also be confined till the period of disposal/removal of the stocked coal from the factory premises of the petitioner.
The writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of with the aforesaid observations and directions.
I.A. No.4857 of 2020 also stands disposed of.
(Rajesh Shankar, J.) Sanjay/
Reproduced from the public record of the Jharkhand High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.