Back
2008 Supreme(Cal) 507
CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
PARTHA SAKHA DATTA, J.
Chhotelal Choudhury and Ors.
versus
State of W.B.
C. R. R. No. 2721 of 2005
Decided on : 9 -5 -2008.
Ashok Kumar Chakraborty, Pinaki Ranjan Chakraborty, for Petitioner; Debabrata Roy, for Respondents.
The Central legislative authority has exclusive power to legislate on mines and minerals, and the State Legislature has no independent law-making power.
Headnote:
MINES AND MINERALS - LAND REFORMS - INDIAN PENAL CODE - Quashing of proceedings - Petitioners charged with unauthorized extraction of minor minerals, conversion of land without permission, and public nuisance - Acts and sections referred: Section 4(D) of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955; Sections 21(1) and 21(2) of the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957; Rule 30 of the West Bengal Minor Minerals Rules, 1973; Sections 290, 379, and 447 of the Indian Penal Code.
Fact of the Case:
Petitioners, running a brick manufacturing business, were charged with unauthorized extraction of minor minerals, conversion of land without permission, and public nuisance. The prosecution was initiated under the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, and the Indian Penal Code.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the prosecution under the Indian Penal Code was not maintainable as the alleged offenses fell under specific provisions of the special Acts. The court also held that the prosecution under the West Bengal Land Reforms Act was not maintainable as the Central legislative authority had exclusive power to legislate on mines and minerals, and the State Legislature had no independent law-making power.
Issues: 1. Whether the prosecution under the Indian Penal Code was maintainable? 2. Whether the prosecution under the West Bengal Land Reforms Act was maintainable?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the prosecution under the Indian Penal Code was not maintainable as the alleged offenses fell under specific provisions of the special Acts, namely, the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act and the West Bengal Minor Minerals Rules. 2. The court held that the prosecution under the West Bengal Land Reforms Act was not maintainable as the Central legislative authority had exclusive power to legislate on mines and minerals, and the State Legislature had no independent law-making power.
Final Decision: The court allowed the revisional application and quashed the criminal proceedings against the petitioners.
2. The de facto complainant who is the F. I.R. maker is an officer said to be authorised under Section 22 of the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957 and an officer authorised by the Collector under Section 4(D) of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955. He lodged an F. I. R. with the Kalyani Police Station against the present petitioners alleging that they unauthorisedly extracted and removed 1,05,000 c.ft. of ordinary sand/ordinary clay/gravel/building stone/morum/brick earth/marble which are minor minerals in terms of Section 3(c) of the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957 read with a notification of the Government of India without any permission of the appropriate authority or without holding any quarry or permit of mining lease as required under the West Bengal Minor Minerals Rules, 1973 and therefore has committed theft of the said quantum of sand/clay/ gravel/building stone/murum/brick earth/ marble by trespassing into the land and soil and thereby caused public nuisance. Further the petitioners/accused persons unauthorisedly made conversion and without the permission of the Collector of the lands so as to extract minor minerals from the lands and thereby they are liable to be prosecuted under Section 4(D) of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955. Thus, according to the F. I. R. maker such unauthorised extraction and removal of minor minerals makes the persons liable to prosecution under Section 4(D) of the Land Reforms Act, Rule 30 of the West Bengal Minor Minerals Rules, 1973 and Sections 21(1) and 21 (2) of the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957 and also under Sections 290/379/447 of the Indian Penal Code.
3. I have heard Mr. Ashok Kumar Chakraborty, learned Senior Advocate appearing with Mr. Pinaki Ranjan Chakraborty for the petitioners and Mr. Debebrata Roy, learned Advocate appearing for the State of West Bengal.
4. It has been contended in the revisional application that the petitioners had been running a brick manufacturing business in the name and style of M/s. Chowdhury Brick Field on certain plots of land under Police Station Haringhata. Brickfields were set up with a knowledge and consent of the District Mining Authority who is no other than the District Land and Land Reforms Officer, Nadia. During the business year of 2002-03 the petitioners were asked by the District Land and Land Reforms Officer, Nadia to obtain conversion certificate in respect of running of brick field under Section 4(c) of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act. The petitioners had to make an application for such conversion certificate which according to the petitioners was not at all necessary. However, during enquiry the concerned officer of the Government of West Bengal is said to have expressed satisfaction as to the non-agricultural character of the lands in question. However, during the said financial year of 2002-03 the petitioners, being asked for, deposited application for quarry permit under prescribed G form with necessary application fee of Rs. 14,250/- and Rs. 32,300/- on account of advance royalty. Meanwhile, the Bengal Brickfield Owners' Association filed a writ application being C. O. No. 12407(W) of 1990 against the State of West Bengal challenging the applicability of Section 4(c) of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act to the brickfields and that writ application was allowed by His Lordship Hon'ble Justice Maharaj Sinha by judgment an
