Smt. Chanchal Jain vs Union Of India
2014 Latest Caselaw 683 Del

          *IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%                                     Date of decision: 4th February, 2014

+                               LPA No.791/2013

       SMT. CHANCHAL JAIN                                 ..... Appellant
                   Through:           Mr. Rajiv Bajaj, Adv. with Mr. G.L.
                                      Jain, Attorney of the appellant.

                                   Versus
       UNION OF INDIA                                 ..... Respondent

                    Through:          Mr. B.V. Niren & Mr. Aditya
                                      Malhotra, Advs.
CORAM :-
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW

1. This intra-court appeal impugns the order dated 23rd November, 2010 of

the learned Single Judge of this Court of dismissal of W.P.(C) No.5627/2010

filed by the appellant as well as the order dated 19 th January, 2011 of the

learned Single Judge of dismissal of the review petition No.21/2011 filed by the

appellant and yet also the order dated 29th July, 2013 of the learned Single

Judge of dismissal of CMs No.10854-10855/2013 filed by the appellant in the

disposed of writ petition.

2. We have heard the counsel for the appellant.

3. The writ petition from which this appeal arises was filed impugning the

order dated 22nd January, 2010 of the Revisionary Authority, Ministry of Mines

and seeking a direction to the Registrar (Vigilance) of this Court to hold an

enquiry into the aspect of genuineness of the signatures of the husband and

attorney of the appellant Sh. G.L. Jain on a demarcation report on the file of the

Revisionary Authority.

4. The learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition,

finding/observing/ holding; i) that the Revisionary Authority i.e. the Mines

Tribunal had in fact allowed the revision petition of the appellant by setting

aside the order of the State Government and by directing the State Government

to decide the case afresh after undertaking fresh demarcation in the presence of

the appellant within a period of 100 days; ii) that the grievance of the appellant

was that the Mines Tribunal had not declared the alleged signatures of the

appellant's attorney Sh. G.L. Jain on demarcation report and Field Book as

forged and fabricated and not directed prosecution of the officials of the State

Government who according to the appellant were responsible for the alleged

forgery; iii) that there was no error in the refusal by the Mines Tribunal to do so

for the reason of the Mines Tribunal being neither an expert to adjudicate

forgery nor being in a position to comment or give any direction on the same;

and, iv) that the remedy of the appellant in this regard under the criminal law

was elsewhere and which the appellant claimed to have already invoked.

5. The counsel for the appellant has invited our attention to the order dated

26th August, 2009 in earlier W.P.(C) No.11073/2006 preferred by the appellant

and in pursuance whereto the Mines Tribunal considered the matter afresh and

allowed the revision petition of the appellant and set aside the order of the State

Government and remanded the matter of allocation of mining lease to the State

Government for decision afresh after undertaking fresh demarcation. The

counsel for the appellant has argued that this Court in the said order dated 26th

August, 2009 had directed the Mines Tribunal to also decide on the aspect of

forgery and give necessary direction for prosecution.

6. We are, from a reading of the order dated 26th August, 2009, unable to

find any such direction. Rather, we find this Court, in the said order to have

held that the Revisionary Authority has been created under the Mines &

Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 and the Mineral Concession

Rules, 1960 and its powers are circumscribed by the statute and it does not have

any power to grant or compute any compensation as was claimed by the

appellant then also on account of forgery. The appellant, then also was advised

to file appropriate proceedings in this regard. The said order disposed of

W.P.(C) No.11073/2006 preferred by the appellant with a direction to the

Mines Tribunal to decide the revision petition preferred by the appellant against

the order of the State Government.

7. The Mines Tribunal had admittedly decided the revision petition.

Though no definite finding on the allegations of the appellant of her attorney's

signatures being forged on the demarcation report have been given but in view

thereof, fresh demarcation has been directed.

8. The counsel for the appellant inspite of our prodding is unable to show us

any powers of the Mines Tribunal to render a finding of forgery / fabrication of

documents/signatures or to order prosecution.

9. The counsel for the appellant has referred to the judgment of the Division

Bench of the Allahabad High Court in M/s Rajgiri Minerals Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State

of U.P. 1982 Allahabad Law Journal 730 laying down that the powers of the

Revisionary Authority under Section 30 of the Act are very wide. We are

however unable to find the said judgment as laying down that the Revisionary

Authority has power to adjudicate the questions of forgery of signatures.

10. The counsel for the appellant at this stage states that liberty be given to

the appellant to take appropriate steps in this regard.

11. Though we find the learned Single Judge to have already given such

liberty to the appellant but we nevertheless, while dismissing this appeal clarify

that the appellant shall have liberty in accordance with law to make complaint /

grievance before the appropriate forum, of her attorney's signatures having

been forged on the demarcation report and to seek an appropriate relief with

respect thereto.

No costs.

CHIEF JUSTICE

RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J FEBRUARY 04, 2014 'gsr'..