This application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed for quashing the first information report of Gua P.S. case no.22 of 2008 instituted under sections 420/34 of the Indian Penal Code and also under sections 8/9 of the Jharkhand Minerals Dealers’ Rule read with Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957.

The case of the prosecution is that one Raghav Nandan Prasad, District Mining Officer, Chaibasa on receiving information relating to illegal storage of iron ores came along with other Mining Officials as well Sub-Inspector of Police of Barajamda out post near Central Hospital, Barajamda and found iron ore fines/blue dust stored at Noamundi-Barajamda road. On enquiry, it could be known that iron ores taken from the mines situated in the State of Orissa was meant to be transported to Haldia Port still it was stored at Barajamda, though transport permit never permitted storage at Barajamda nor any one had been given licence under the Jharkhand Minerals Dealers’ Rule, 2007 for storage of the iron ores at the place where it was found. However, it could be found that different quantity of iron ores had been stored there by the transporters, namely, S.M.Carrier, Kolkata-Jaipur Parivahan Pvt. Ltd, Supersonic Carriers Pvt. Ltd, A.M. Logistics Pvt. Ltd and thus, those accused persons by contravening provision of the aforesaid rules committed offence under Rule 8 and 9 of the Jharkhand Minerals Dealers’ Rule and the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act as well as under the Indian Penal Code.

On the basis of the information given to the Gua police, a case was registered as Gua Police case no.22 of 2008 under sections 420/34 of the Indian Penal Code and also under Rules 8 and 9 of the Jharkhand Minerals Dealers’ Rule read with Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act.

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that Jharkhand Minerals Dealers’ Rule, 2007 was promulgated by the State of Jharkhand in exercise of power conferred by Section 23 (C) (1) and 23(2)(c) of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 in order to regulate mining, transportation, storage of minerals and mineral products and further Rule 3 prohibits any person from engaging himself in any transaction of buying and selling any minerals without being registered and similarly Rule 6 prohibits any person from transporting any minerals without obtaining transport challan. Further Rule 8 is a penal provision prescribing punishment in case any person contravenes any of the provision of rule or buys or sells or stores minerals.

Learned counsel in view of the aforesaid provisions submits that the allegations upon which the case has been lodged do fall within the purview of special legislation, namely, Jharkhand Minerals Dealer’s Rule, 2007 and Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 and in that event the cognizance of such offence in terms of the provision as contained in Section 22 of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 can be taken by the court only upon complaint in writing made by a person authorized in this behalf by the Central Government or the State Government and therefore, any prosecution initiated on the basis of the first information report would be quite illegal and hence, first information report is fit to be quashed.

It be stated that in spite of opportunity being given to the State, no counter affidavit has been filed.

Having heard learned counsel appearing for the parties, it appears that on finding iron ore stored at a place at the instance of the accused without there being any authority, a case was registered under sections 420/34 and section 8/9 of the Jharkhand Minerals Dealers’ Rule read with Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act but the question falls for consideration is as to whether in view of the special law, namely, Jharkhand Minerals Dealers’ Rule, 2007 and also Mines and Minerals (Develop