"The impugned order shall remain stayed to the extent the same directs the CBI to register criminal cases and to continue investigation in the same," a bench of Chief Justice T S Thakur and Justice A M Khanwilkar said.
"We, however, make it clear that this order shall not prevent the High Court from examining the preliminary investigation/enquiry reports submitted by the CBI and kept in a sealed cover in the High Court and passing a fresh order after due and proper application of mind and after hearing the State against the same in accordance with law," it said.
He said the order was passed without proper application of mind as there was no specific allegation of illegal mining in the state and hence the CBI be stopped from investigating the matter.
Advocate Prashant Bhushan, appearing for one Sonu Kumar and others, said the High Court has rightly passed the order as illegal mining was being carried out in connivance with officials in the state machinery.
He alleged that concerned authorities responsible for checking illegal mining were themselves facilitating mining across the state.
To this, the bench said had the High Court gone through preliminary investigation report filed by CBI in sealed cover and asked for registration of criminal cases, then it would have been another matter.
"The High Court did not even open the report filed by CBI in sealed cover. Hence the order was passed without proper application of mind," the bench said.
The CBI which was asked by the High Court to file its
report within six weeks had submitted its findings in a sealed cover.
It had expressed dissatisfaction with the explanation given in an affidavit by the state's Principal Secretary (Mining) and said his submission that a committee has been set up to look into illegal mining activities in the state was "an eyewash".
The court had held that the affidavit did not adequately address the petitioners' contention that illegal mining was being carried out in collusion with government officials and the claim, made in affidavits filed in course of hearing on the PIL by district magistrates, that no such activity was taking place in their respective areas of jurisdiction, was "false".
You’ve reached your limit of {{free_limit}} free articles this month.
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
Already subscribed? Log in
Subscribe to read the full story →
Smart Quarterly
₹900
3 Months
₹300/Month
Smart Essential
₹2,700
1 Year
₹225/Month
Super Saver
₹3,900
2 Years
₹162/Month
Renews automatically, cancel anytime
Here’s what’s included in our digital subscription plans
Exclusive premium stories online
Over 30 premium stories daily, handpicked by our editors


Complimentary Access to The New York Times
News, Games, Cooking, Audio, Wirecutter & The Athletic
Business Standard Epaper
Digital replica of our daily newspaper — with options to read, save, and share


Curated Newsletters
Insights on markets, finance, politics, tech, and more delivered to your inbox
Market Analysis & Investment Insights
In-depth market analysis & insights with access to The Smart Investor


Archives
Repository of articles and publications dating back to 1997
Ad-free Reading
Uninterrupted reading experience with no advertisements


Seamless Access Across All Devices
Access Business Standard across devices — mobile, tablet, or PC, via web or app
