Disposed

Md Sarfraz v. The State Of Jharkhand And Ors.

Jharkhand HC5 Apr 2019WPC/66/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This PIL regarding the Lalmatia mine accident death of over 23 persons was disposed with direction to the Central Government to appoint a court of inquiry under Section 24 of Mines Act. No order was passed on rescue or compensation. dll

What did the court decide?

Directed the Central Government to appoint a Court of inquiry under Section 24 of the Mines Act, 1952 within 16 weeks.

Md Sarfraz Vs The State Of Jharkhand And Ors. — Public Procurement and Tenders | Jharkhand HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(PIL) No. 66 of 2017

¶2

----

¶3

Md. Sarfraz, S/o Sk. Amin, R/o Mahagama, P.O. & P.S. Mahagama, District Godda … … Petitioner

¶4

Versus

¶5

The State of Jharkhand

¶6

The Deputy Commissioner, Godda having office at P.O. & P.S. Godda, District Godda.

¶7

The Eastern Coalfields Limited, through its Chief General Manager, having office at Lalmatia, P.O. & P.S. Lalmatia, District Godda. 4. The Project Officer, Eastern Coalfield Limited, Rajmahal Project, Lalmatia, P.O. & P.S. Lalmatia, District Godda.

¶8

The Director, Mines Safety, Directorate of Mines Safety having office at Dhanbad, P.O. & P.S. Dhanbad, District Dhanbad.

¶9

The Central Bureau of Investigation, having office at Karmik Nagar, Dhanbad, P.O. & P.S. Saraidhella, District Dhanbad.

¶10

M/s. Mahalaxmi represented through its Managing Director, having office at Urjanagar, Mahagama, P.O. & P.S. Mahagama, District Godda. 8. Union of India, through its Secretary, Ministry of Labour & Employment, having office at Sharam Shakti Bhawan, New Delhi-110001.

¶11

… … Respondents

¶12

----

¶13

CORAM : HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE H.C. MISHRA

¶14

---- For the Petitioner : Mr. Lukesh Kumar, Advocate For the Respondent State : Mr. D.K.Pathak, G.A.-III. Miss Sweta Rani, A.C. to G.A.-III For the Respondent ECL : Mr. Anil Kumar Sinha, Sr. Advocate Mr. Pratyush Lalla, Advocate For the Respondent No.5 & 8 : Mr. Rajiv Sinha, ASGI Mr. Niraj Kumar, J.C. to ASGI For the Respondent No.7 : Miss Pooja Kumari, Advocate

¶15

Order No. 17 : Dated 5^th April, 2019 Aniruddha Bose, C.J.

¶16

This writ petition arises out of an accident which took place in Lalmatia Open Cast Mines operated by the Eastern Coalfields Limited. The accident took place on 29^th December, 2016 resulting in death of at least 23 persons. In this Public Interest Litigation prayer is for speedy rescue of the persons and compensation to the families of the persons who had died in the accident.

¶17

So far as rescue operation is concerned, the accident took place on 29^th December, 2016. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the coal company

¶18

submits that the rescue operation is by and large complete and the company is in the process of completing such operation. Hence on that prayer we do not pass any order at this stage.

¶19

As regards the question of compensation, in the counter affidavit of respondent no. 3 affirmed on 21^st August, 2017, it has been pleaded that exgratia compensation of Rs. 5 lacs for each deceased victim has been paid by the management of the coal company as also payment under Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923 has been made. Moreover, the respondent no. 7 being the contractor, who was carrying on the operation, has made payment of Rs. 5 lacs each to the family members of the deceased victims. Thus, the question of compensation also stands addressed to.

¶20

Before us, no complaint has been made that there is still any missing person who could not be traced in the aftermath of the accident. Criminal cases have also been instituted on the basis of an enquiry report of the Director General of Mines Safety under Section 23 of the Mines Act, 1952. 5. Having regard to the dimension and nature of accident, this Court is of the view that a Court of inquiry ought to have been appointed in terms of Section 24 of the Mines Act, 1952. Learned Assistant Solicitor General of India appearing on behalf of the respondent no. 8 i.e. Secretary, Ministry of Labour and Employment, submits that since criminal cases are pending as also because this Court is in seisin of the matter, no such step has been taken.

¶21

We are of the opinion, however, scope for a Court of inquiry to examine the causes and circumstances attending the accident is much wider and if any further safety steps or remedial measures are required to be taken, the Court of inquiry can make recommendation in that regard. In such circumstances, Central Government should consider appointing a Court of inquiry for the purpose aforesaid as contemplated in Section 24 of the Mines

¶22

Act, 1952. Such steps shall be taken by the Central Government preferably within a period of sixteen weeks.

¶23

So far as this writ petition is concerned, we do not find any reason to

¶24

keep the same pending. This Public Interest Litigation shall stand disposed

¶25

of.

¶26

(Aniruddha Bose, C.J.)

¶27

(H.C.Mishra, J.)

¶28

Birendra/

Md Sarfraz v. The State Of Jharkhand And Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Md Sarfraz v. The State Of Jharkhand And Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The New Bombay Stores Represented Through Its Partner Namely Joyesh Panchamiya Vs Ms Narbheram Leasing Company Private Limited Thr Representative Cum Director Mr Rajen P Kamani and

Diwan Indranil Sinha Vs The State Of Jharkhand And Ors.

Diwan Indranil Sinha Vs the State of Jharkhand through Its Chief Secretary

Bijendra Kumar Vs Pinky Kumari

Namita Jha Alias Namita Kumari Vs Gaurinandan

Damyanti Devi Vs Dayal Prasad