The legal point established is that for liability under Section 16 of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986, the accused must be directly in charge and responsible for the conduct of the company's business, and the complainant must make averments to that effect in the complaint petition.

JUDGMENT :

SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI, J.

1. Heard Mr. Indrajit Sinha along with Mr. Rishav Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners, Mrs. Anuradha Sahay and Mr. Vishwanath Roy, learned counsel for the State and Mr. Rajesh Kumar, learned counsel for opposite party no. 2.

2. In these petitions, common complaint case and cognizance order have been challenged and that is why, all these petitions are being heard together with consent of the parties.

3. These petitions have been filed for quashing the entire criminal proceedings initiated as against the petitioners in connection with C/7 Case No. 15 of 2015 including the order dated 26.02.2015, whereby, cognizance has been taken against the petitions under Section 15 of Environment (Protection) Act, 1986, pending in the court of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chaibasa.

4. The complaint case was filed alleging therein that a mining lease for iron ore was granted in favour of Tata Steel Limited over an area of 1160.36 hectares in Noamundi, West Singhbhum. It was further alleged that environmental clearance was issued in favour of Tata Steel Limited by the Ministry of Environment and Forest, Government of India on 18.05.1994 and thereafter the capacity of the same was enhanced by the Ministry of Environment and Forest, Government of India by letter dated 06.04.2005 and the production of iron ore was enhanced from 4.65 MTPA to 7.6 MTPA. The allegations has been made that production has been made beyond the limit prescribed by the Environment Clearance for the years 2000-2001 to 2004-2005. It was also alleged that for the period commencing from 19941995 to 2004-2005 production capacity was also exceeded. A show cause notice in this regard was issued to the company on 26.09.2014. The complainant-opposite party no. 2 claims to have been authorised by the competent authority to file the complaint by a letter dated 20.02.2015. Based on such authorization, the complaint was brought against the accused company namely Noamundi Iron Ore Mines, Tata Steel Limited and the officials named as accused in the complaint alleging commission of offence under Section 15 of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986. The petitioners have been arrayed as accused nos. 2 to 4 and in the cause title, it has been reflected that they were 'the then Agent' of the Mines and, therefore, they have been made accused in the criminal case.

5. Mr. Indrajit Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the complaint was filed on 26.02.2015 and the Court of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chaibasa on the same day, after purportedly perusing the complaint observed that a prima facie case is made out for the offence under Section 15 of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 and directed issuance of summons against the persons named as accused in the complaint petition. He further submits that the petitioners have been alleged as accused in the capacity of agents. He refers Section 16 of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 and submits that the employee and officer of the company, who was directly in-charge of and was responsible to the company for the conduct of the business of the company shall be deemed to be guilty. On these grounds, he submits that the entire criminal proceedings may kindly be quashed.

6. On the other hand, Mr. Rajesh Kumar, learned counsel for opposite party no. 2 submits that in view of provision of Section 16 of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986, the petitioners are liable to be prosecuted. He further submit that the learned court has rightly taken the cognizance. He further submits that the person who was authorised under the Act has filed the complaint case. He also submits that the petitioners were looking to day-to-day affairs of the company.

7. Learned counsel for the State submit that the learned court has taken cognizance under the said Act, which is special provision and this Court may not entertain this petition.

8. In view of the above submissions of the learned counsel for