The main legal point established in the judgment is that cognizance of offences under the MMDR Act, 1957 and the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 can only be taken upon a written complaint made by a person authorized by the Central Government or the State Government.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Mr. Sanjeev Ranjan, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Gyan Prakash Ojha, learned counsel for the State and Mr. Sumit Shekhar Pandey, learned counsel for the respondent no.6.

2. With the consent of the parties, this application has been taken up for final hearing and disposal at the stage of admission itself.

3. This application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner for quashing the first information report (for short ‘FIR’) of Paharkata P.S. Case No. 155 of 2018 registered under Section 40 of the Bihar Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1972 (for short ‘the Rules’) and Section 15 of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 (for short ‘the Act’).

4. Mr. Sanjeev Ranjan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the FIR in question has been instituted in contravention of the statutory provisions prescribed under the Rules and the Act. According to him, in view of Section 22 of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 (for short ‘MMDR Act, 1957’) since cognizance can be taken by a competent authority only on a complaint preferred by a person authorized by the Central/State Government, Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short ‘Cr.P.C’) stands excluded and, therefore, an FIR cannot be registered by the police. He has urged that there is no provision under the MMDR Act, 1957 or the Rules conferring any power upon the police authority to investigate any case.

5. He has contended that the allegation in the FIR is that the petitioner was carrying on mining activities in violation of mining plan, which was hazardous to the environment. According to him, any contravention in violation of the conditions of the settlement or environmental clearance would be punishable only by way of filing a complaint and not by a police report. In support of his contention, he has placed reliance on a decision of this Court in M/s Mahadev Enclave Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Bihar & Ors., since reported in 2019 (3) PLJR 166.

6. The State has contested the matter. However, Mr. Gyan Prakash Ojha, learned counsel appearing for the State concedes that in M/s Mahadev Enclave Pvt. Ltd. (Supra) this Court has already held that the prosecution for the alleged violation of or any irregularity in mining by a settlee, who has been given mining lease of sand ghats, cannot be launched on the basis of police report submitted under Section 173(2) of the Cr.P.C. He has also conceded that the State has not challenged judgment of this Court passed in the matter of M/s Mahadev Enclave Pvt. Ltd.

7. Having heard the parties, firstly I would take note of the allegations made in the FIR.

8. The informant Sanjay Prasad, the District Mines Officer, Kishanganj has alleged that on 04.12.2018, at about 8:00 a.m., a joint inspection team consisting of he himself, the Sub-Divisional Officer, Kishanganj, the Deputy Collector Land Reforms, Kishanganj and the District Transport Officer, Kishanganj visited Raipur Kharudah ghat and found a dredger by the side of the river. It appeared that the said dredger was used for mining of sand. The informant has further alleged that the settlee himself has written letter to the department that it was a tractor Ghat, but in course of inquiry, empty trucks were found near the Ghat. He has further alleged that one Dhaneshwar Harijan gave his statement that sand from the Ghat is being transported mostly by truck.

9. On the basis of the aforesaid allegations, the informant alleged that the provisions prescribed under Rule 40 of the Rules and Section 15 of the Act were violated by the petitioner.

10. Admitted facts of the case are that in a public auction held on 13.01.2015 for settlement of entire Balu Ghat in the district of Kishanganj for a period of five years, the petitioner was declared the highest bidder.

11. Accordingly, settlement was made in his favour and he was directed to deposit security amount.

12. After due formalities, work order wa