ASHWANI KUMAR SINGH, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the State, learned counsel for the Mines Department and learned counsel for the Bihar State Pollution Control Board.

2. In the present application preferred under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the first information report (for short ‘FIR’) of Patory P.S. Case No. 25 of 2016, as contained in Annexure-7, registered under Rule-4, 26A and 40(1) of the Bihar Minor Mineral concession Rules, 1972 (for short the Rules of 1972).

3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the FIR instituted against the petitioner is bad in law, in view of the fact that the Officer-in-Charge of a police station does not have any authority to institute a case under the provisions of Rules of 1972. Referring to the provisions prescribed under Rules 4, 26A, 40(1) and 41of the Rules of 1972, he submitted that only a complaint and not an FIR would be maintainable in respect of any violation of any of the provisions of the Rules of 1972.

4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the mining department submitted that the institution of an FIR in