SUMAN K SHRIVASTAVA
Ranchi, April 21: Over 62 years back, the Supreme Court, while quashing the Bihar Government’s order that cancelled the licence granted to the then landlord of Ramgarh Kamakshya Narain Singh for mica mining, had observed that no man shall be a judge in his own cause and this maxim applies not only to a member of a judicial body but also to authorities who have to act judicially in deciding the rights of others.
The need to reiterate this principle has come in view of the latest development of how Jharkhand Chief Minister Hemant Soren, also holding the mines portfolio, secured a mining lease for stone quarrying in his own name. It has led both the Jharkhand High Court as well as the Election Commission to examine the rules/laws the Chief Minister has violated for securing a lease for stone mining.
Notably, way back in 1959, the Apex court had rubbished the Bihar Government’s order cancelling the licence granted to Kamakshya Narain Singh on December 29, 1947, for mica mining in 3026 villages in Hazaribagh districts for a period of 999 years.
The Bihar Government cancelled the licence on September 1, 1955 when Krishna Ballav Sahay, a resident of Hazaribagh, was the Revenue Minister, and he was in charge of the department dealing with mines. There was political rivalry between Sahay and the ex-landlord of Ramgarh and Serampur Estates in the district of Hazaribagh.
The Apex court, among other grounds under the Bihar Mica Act, 1947, took in its view the personal bias of Sahay as a reason for quashing the Bihar government’s order cancelling the licence for mining mica in 3026 villages in Hazaribagh district.
The Supreme Court observed that the Revenue Minister had personal bias within the meaning of the decisions and he should not have taken part in either initiating the enquiry or in cancelling the licence.
The then landlord alleged in the petition that he had opposed the Revenue Minister in the general election held in 1952 to the Bihar Legislative Assembly in the constituency of Giridih and Barkagaon and defeated him.
He also stated that before the said election, the Revenue Minister filed a criminal case against him in the District Court of Hazaribagh charging him under Section 500 of the Indian Penal Code. The High Court in a judgment on April 15, 1952, delivered in the petition to transfer the said case to some other court recorded the admitted fact that there was political rivalry between the Minister and Singh. Ultimately, the Supreme Court transferred the said criminal case from the State of Bihar to the file of a Magistrate’s Court in Delhi on the ground that there was political rivalry between the two persons.
The Bihar government, in its reply said that the alleged political rivalry between Singh and Sahay, the then Minister, Revenue, has no bearing on the facts of this case so far as the orders of the Government are concerned.
The Supreme Court said that the allegations of personal bias of the Revenue Minister against the proprietor is not denied. “It is also not disputed that the proceedings against Singh were started during the tenure of the said Revenue Minister and that the actual order of cancellation was made by him. We have no hesitation in holding that the Revenue Minister had a personal bias against the proprietor and that he was also acting on the belief that the lease was only benami for the said proprietor,” the court said.
The court said that the licence affecting rights of great magnitude was cancelled to say the least, for trivial reasons. “The enquiry was held by the department headed by the Minister who was obviously biased against the landlord. Some technical non-compliances of the Rules alleged to have been discovered during the inspection of certain godowns were given as an excuse to withdraw the licence; no opportunity was given to the landlord to inspect its accounts and to explain the alleged defaults with reference to the accounts,” the court said.
“Meanwhile, as a second string to the bow, the state filed a suit against the landlord for a declaration that the lease was benami and for other reliefs. The hidden hand of the Revenue Minister can be seen in this enquiry. The proceedings were started because of political rivalry between the proprietor and the Revenue Minister. Though heavy stakes were involved, the enquiry was conducted in a manner which did not give any real opportunity to the landlord to explain its conduct and to disprove the allegations made against it; and the order of cancellation of the licence was made admittedly by the same Revenue Minister, who was behind the enquiry,” the court concluded.
