JavaScript must be enabled in order for you to use the Site in standard view. However, it seems JavaScript is either disabled or not supported by your browser. To use standard view, enable JavaScript by changing your browser options.

| Last Updated:12/01/2017

Latest News(Archive)

Latest News

‘SIT on mining cases can probe only referred cases’

 

Date | Jan 12, 2017:

The High Court of Karnataka on Wednesday ruled that the Special Investigation Team (Lokayukta), formed to investigate certain cases related to illegal mining, has no jurisdiction to probe other illegal mining cases except those specifically referred to it by the State government.

 

The court said the terms of the notification issued on November 22, 2013 do not indicate that the SIT is authorised generally to conduct an investigation into any and every case of illegal mining as the notification has listed specific cases of illegal mining based on the report of the Karnataka Lokayukta.

 

Justice Anand Byrareddy passed the order while quashing a criminal case registered in 2015 against R. Suresh, 76, IAS officer who retired in 2001.

 

The allegations against Mr. Suresh, who was Secretary, Department of Industries and Commerce, in 2000, was that he had modified/rectified a sketch of a mining lease related to Kondli village in Gubbi taluk of Tumakuru district, without obtaining prior permission from the Union government. The rectification benefited a lease holder as an adjoining area rich in iron ore was included.

 

However, the petitioner had contended that the sketch was modified after the order passed by the Mining Minister, after approving the proposal placed before him based on directions given by the High Court.

 

Meanwhile, the SIT had claimed that though the notification does not contain a reference for investigation regarding irregularity in grant of lease, modification of the sketch and the consequent violation of Section 5(1) of the Mines and Mineral (Development and Regulations) Act, it claimed jurisdiction over any illegal mining case as the SIT was declared a police station.

 

While rejecting the SIT’s contention, the court also said the allegations in the complaint does not make out any case against the petitioner and registration of criminal cases under Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act was again illegal and contrary to the powers conferred on the SIT.

 

 

(Source: http://www.thehindu.com/)