HC quashes FIR against IAS officer

The division bench comprising Justice N Kumar and Justice Arali Nagraj dismissed the single judge order on July 2, 2010.

Jain had challenged the single judge order, who had dismissed the petition seeking to quash the FIR against him in connection with illegal mining case. An FIR against Jain was filed following a complaint lodged by Jija Harisingh, senior IPS officer.

Quashing the FIR, the bench observed that no harm will cause to the respondents if the appeal is allowed. “The single judge has erred while dismissing the petition of Jain,” Justice Kumar observed.

Jija Harisingh, DGP, Home Guards and Fire Force had filed the complaint against appellant (Jain) with SJ Park Police under various sections of IPC.

Jain was Chairman and MD of Mysore Minerals Limited (MML), when he deposed before Lokayukta and Justice U L Bhat Commission and alleged that crores of rupees of irregularities was committed by Jija Harisingh when she was MD, MML between April 2004 and June 2006. The Lokayukta probe later on found Rs 354 crore irregularities at MML between the year 2000 and 2006.

Mining in leased area

The HC has cleared the path for mining within the leased area for Sandur based V S Lad and Sons, after the company submitted that it has separated the leased land from the forest land following the High Court direction dated October 29, 2010.

Hearing a petition challenging the ban on mining and seizure of machinery by the State Forest Department, the Division Bench observed that the petitioner has earmarked 91 hectares of land of the total 105 hectares leased to him. The Bench comprising Chief Justice J S Khehar and Justice B S Patil directed that the petitioner should be allowed to continue with mining operations.

“In view of the facts presented by the petitioner, he should be allowed to carry out mining in 91 hectares demarcated as undisputed land,” the Bench said.

The Bench has also directed the State to release machineries and other equipment, which had been seized. However, the State has been directed to initiate action as per rules in case of violation of lease by the petitioners.

Comments (+)