Ashwani Kumar Singh, J. – Heard Mr. S.B. Upadhyay, learned senior advocate assisted by Mr. Suraj Samdarshi, learned advocate for the petitioner, Mr. Gyan Prakash Ojha, learned advocate for the State and Ms Kalpana, learned advocate for the respondent nos. 8 and 9.

2. This order shall dispose of Cr.W.J.C. Nos. 540 of 2019, 676 of 2019, 693 of 2019 and 718 of 2019.

3. The aforementioned cases involve more or less identical facts and questions of law.

4. In all the writ petitions, parties are common except respondent no.5, who is Officer-in-charge of different police stations.

5. The petitioner is one of the Directors of Broad Son Commodities Pvt. Limited, a company incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956. He has been made accused in Sigaudi P.S. Case No. 02 of 2018, Bhagwanganj P.S. Case No. 02 of 2018, Dhanarua P.S. Case No. 07 of 2018 and Naubatpur P.S. Case No. 07 of 2018.

6. The first information report (for short ‘FIR) of the aforesaid four police cases have been registered under Sections 420, 406, 379 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code (for short ‘IPC’), Section 21 of the Mines and Minerals (Development & Regulation) Act, 1957 (for short ‘MMDR Act’), Rules 40, 21 and 22 of the Bihar Minor Minerals Concession Rules, 1972 (for short ‘1972 Rules’) and Section 15 of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 (for short ‘1986 Act’).

7. Since essential facts of all the cases are identical, the facts are being extracted from Cr.W.J.C. No. 540 of 2019.

8. In Cr.W.J.C. No. 540 of 2019, the prayer of the petitioner is to issue a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing Sigaudi P.S. Case No. 02 of 2018 registered on 09.01.2018 on the basis of a written report submitted by the Mines Inspector, Patna alleging therein that the Broad Son Commodities Pvt. Limited (for short ‘Company’) was settled sand ghats in Patna district for the period 2015-2019. Upon inquiry of the monthly report submitted for Chakiya-2, Jarka and Tikul sand ghats, it appears that excess sand had been excavated than prescribed in the mining plan and the environment clearance. It has been further alleged that the total quantity of excess mined sand is 76,98,625 cubic feet. The settlee did not perform mining work according to the approved mining plan and the environment clearance and thereby illegally excavated sand, which is in violation of Rules 22(2) and 21-A(3) and (4) of the 1972 Rules. He has further alleged that according to Rule 40(8) of the 1972 Rules, the cost of 76,98,625 cubic feet sand at the rate of Rs.7/- per cubic feet = Rs.5,38,90,375/- is recoverable from the Company. He has further alleged that the petitioner being one of the directors of the Company and other officials have illegally excavated excess sand, which has caused loss to the exchequer and damage to the environment.

9. On the basis of the aforesaid written report of the Mines Inspector, Patna, after instituting the case, investigation has been taken up.

10. For the sake of convenience, necessary details of other police cases are also given here-in-below in tabular chart: –

Sl. Nos. Sand ghats from which excess excavation was made Quantity of excess excavated sand Value of excess excavated sand

Cr.W.J.C. No. 676 of 2019 arising out of Bhagwanganj P.S. Case No. 02 of 2018 Sahora Khnia Patiranga 95,07,800 cubic feet 6,65,54,600/-

Cr.W.J.C. No. 693 of 2019 arising out of Dhanarua P.S. Case No. 07 of 2018 Debdaha Pavera Satparsha 93,23,200 cubic feet 6,52,62,400/-

Cr.W.J.C. No. 718 of 2019 arising out of Naubatpur P.S. Case No. 07 of 2018 Pakua Dumri 24,32,900 cubic feet 1,70,30,300/-

11. Mr. S.B. Upadhyay, learned senior advocate appearing for the petitioner submitted that from perusal of the contents of the FIR, it would be evident that the only allegation of the informant is regarding excess mining of sand in comparison to the limit prescribed in the mining plan and environment clearance. He contended that the excess mining is entirely distinct from illegal mining. Accordin