The Special Court lacks jurisdiction to directly take cognizance of the offences under the MMDR Act and KMMC Rules, and any such complaint should be returned for representation to the proper Court.

P.G.M. PATIL, J.

1. This writ petition is filed under Article 226 and 227 of Constitution of India R/w Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the order dated 28.01.2019 passed in Spl. Case (MMDR) No.928/2018 on the file of Principal District and Sessions Judge, Bidar and further to modify the order dated 13.12.2018 passed in said case by relaxing condition to furnish bank guarantee for Rs.6,00,000/-.

2. The facts leading to filing of this writ petition are as follows:

The petitioner is the owner and driver of the lorry bearing registration No.KA-38-5040, and carrying business of transportation. On 24.09.2018 respondent No.2 filed a private compliant under Section 200 of Cr.PC before the Principal District and Sessions Judge Bidar, against the petitioner and others for the alleged offences punishable under Section 3(1), 42, 43, 44 and 31(R) 13 of KMMC Rules and Section 4(1), 4(1)(A) of Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act. It is alleged in the complaint that on 03.06.2018 the Tahsildar Bidar informed her that the petitioner is illegally conducting mining operations in Sy.No.205/5 of Sikindrapur village and exporting literite stones. Therefore, respondent No.2 along with Tahasildar and other officers visited the place and found that the petitioner was doing mining operations in the said land in violation of the provisions of the KMMC Rules and MMDR Act. Therefore, she filed the said complaint to take action against the petitioner. On the basis of the said complaint, the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Bidar took cognizance of the offence under the provisions of MMDR Act and KMMC Rules and Section 379 of IPC and ordered to registered the case and issue summons to the petitioner.

3. The petitioner had filed an application under Section 457 of Cr.,PC for the release of Ashok Leyland Lorry bearing registration No.KA-38-5040 which was seized in the case, stating the said vehicle is required for daily business which is the only source of income. The learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Bidar passed an order for the release of the said vehicle to the interim custody of the petitioner on 13.12.218 subject to the conditions that the petitioner shall executive indemnity bond for Rs.3,00,000/- with one surety to the like-sum and also bank guarantee to the extent of Rs.6,00,000/- along with other conditions. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner filed another application before the said Court for relaxation of the condition to furnish bank guarantee which was also rejected by the said Court. Therefore, the petitioner having no other alternative or efficacious remedy has filed this writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution of India R/w Section 482 of Cr.PC.

4. The petitioner has further stated that the trial Court committed patient error of jurisdiction by passing the impugned order which is liable to be quashed. The lorry of the petitioner when seized was empty and was not engaged in illegal mining or illegal transportation of any material. Condition to furnish bank guarantee is harsh and arbitrary. The impugned order is bad in law against the principles settled by this Court. In similar circumstances this Court has quashed the orders and also relaxed the condition to furnish bank guarantee.

5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondents.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioner relying on the judgment of this Court in the case of Sri Vivek and another V/s The State of Karnataka by Kunigal Police Station, Tumkur District and another, reported in, (2018) 2 KCCR 1239, submitted that the Special Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the private complaint and take cognizance of the alleged offences under MMDR Act and KMMC Rules and therefore the very taking of the cognizance of alleged offences by the Special Court and registering the case and issue of summons to the petitioner on the basis of the private