Point of Law : mere manufacturing M-sand would not amount to violation of MMDR Act, however since the building stone is used for manufacture of M-sand, it is required that proper permit/licence as regards the building stone and documentary proof relating thereto are required to be made available by the petitioner . [Para 11.2]

ORDER :

1. The petitioner is before this Court seeking for the following reliefs;

a. Issue a Writ of certiorari or any other order or direction, directing to quash or set aside the entire proceedings originated from the Complaint dated 19.02.2019 filed by 5th Respondent Geologist at PCR No.39/2019 pending on the filed of Prl. Civil Judge & JMFC, Kunigal, Tumkur District, Produced at Annexure-A : and/or

b. Issue a writ of mandamus or any other order or direction, directing to return the seized 500M-Sand as per Seizure Report dated 12.02.2019 produced at Annexure-B which is not defined as “Minor Mineral” in view of subsequent filing of a private complaint dated 19.02.2019 produced at Annexure-A; and / or

c. Pass such other further orders as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper to meet the ends of justice.

2. The Geologist filed a private complaint with the Prl. Civil Judge and JMFC, Kunigal, Tumkur district on 19.2.2019 under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. which came to be registered as PCR No.39/2019 alleging offences under Section 4, 4(1A), 21, 22 and 23 of Mines And Minerals (Development And Regulation) Act, 1957 [‘MMDR Act’ for short] and Rule 3, 42, 43 and 43A of Karnataka Minor Mineral Rules, 1994 [‘KMM Rules’ for short] as also rule 3(2) of Karnataka Regulation of Stone Crushers Act, 2011 [‘Stone Crusher Act of 2011’ for short] read with Amendment Rules 2013.

3. It is alleged in the said complaint that the petitioner, though had obtained consent for operation, without obtaining Form-C, had carried out stone crushing activities resulting in the manufacture of M-Sand which amounted to an offence under the aforesaid provisions and as such, criminal prosecution was initiated against the petitioner.

4. Sri.R.G.Kolle, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that :

4.1. The petitioner, having obtained only CFO and not having obtained Form-C licence, the petitioner could not carry out any stone crushing activity and as such petitioner has not carried out any stone crushing activity.

4.2. Alternatively, he submits that the M-sand which has been generated and or manufactured is not a minor mineral inasmuch as it is not covered under the notification issued under the KMMC Rules classifying it to be minor mineral. When there is no minor mineral which is involved, the question of initiating proceedings under the aforesaid provisions against the petitioner would not arise.

4.3. He submits that the Geologist is not authorized to file a complaint in respect of the aforesaid offences and as such in terms of Section 17 of the Stone Crushers Act, 2011 no court shall take cognizance of an offence punishable under the Act or any Rules made thereunder except upon a complaint in writing made by a person authorised on behalf of licensing authority.

4.4. In the present case, there being no licence which has been granted, the Licensing Authority would not have any power nor could it exercise any power. Hence, the question of taking action against the petitioner would not arise.

4.5. On all the aforesaid grounds, he submits that the petition is required to be allowed and the proceeding initiated against the petitioner in PCR No.33/2019 requires to be quashed.

5. Sri.Rohit, learned HCGP would submit that:

5.1. Geologist has been authorised in terms of notification issued by Commerce and Industries Secretariat, in No.CI.21.MMM(2) 2014, Bangalore, dated 21.01.2014 issued in exercise of powers conferred under Subsection (3) and (4) of Section 21 and 22 of MMDR Act, as also under Sub-rule 3 of Rule 43 and 46 of KMCC Rules. The reference to Geologist being found at Sl.No.10 is respect of their own jurisdiction. He therefore, submits that the Geologist being the authorised person under the aforesaid notification and having exercised power within his jurisdiction, same cannot be faulted with.

5.2. The allegation which is made against the petitioner is without o