1.

The petitioner is before this Court seeking for the

following reliefs;

a. Issue a Writ of certiorari or any other order or

direction, directing to quash or set aside the entire

proceedings originated from the Complaint dated

19.02.2019 filed by 5^th Respondent Geologist at

PCR No.39/2019 pending on the filed of Prl. Civil

Judge & JMFC, Kunigal, Tumkur District, Produced

at Annexure-A: and/ or

b. Issue a writ of mandamus or any other order or

direction, directing to return the seized 500M-Sand

as per Seizure Report dated 12.02.2019 produced

at Annexure-B which is not defined as <Minor

Mineral= in view of subsequent filing of a private

- 3 -

complaint

dated

19.02.2019

produced

at

Annexure-A; and / or

c. Pass such other further orders as this Hon9ble Court

may deem fit and proper to meet the ends of

justice.

2.

The Geologist filed a private complaint with the Prl.

Civil Judge and JMFC, Kunigal, Tumkur district on

19.2.2019 under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. which came

to be registered as PCR No.39/2019 alleging offences

under Section 4, 4(1A), 21, 22 and 23 of Mines And

Minerals (Development And Regulation) Act, 1957

[8MMDR Act9 for short] and Rule 3, 42, 43 and 43A of

Karnataka Minor Mineral Rules, 1994 [8KMM Rules9

for short] as also rule 3(2) of Karnataka Regulation

of Stone Crushers Act, 2011 [8Stone Crusher Act of

20119 for short] read with Amendment Rules 2013.

3.

It is alleged in the said complaint that the petitioner,

though had obtained consent for operation, without

obtaining Form-C, had carried out stone crushing

activities resulting in the manufacture of M-Sand

- 4 -

which amounted to an offence under the aforesaid

provisions and as such, criminal prosecution was

initiated against the petitioner.

4.

Sri.R.G.Kolle, learned counsel for the petitioner

would submit that:

4.1. The petitioner, having obtained only CFO and

not

having

obtained

Form-C

licence,

the

petitioner could not carry out any stone

crushing activity and as such petitioner has not

carried out any stone crushing activity.

4.2. Alternatively, he submits that the M-sand which

has been generated and or manufactured is not

a minor mineral inasmuch as it is not covered

under the notification issued under the KMMC

Rules classifying it to be minor mineral. When

there is no minor mineral which is involved, the

question of initiating proceedings under the

- 5 -

aforesaid

provisions

against the petitioner

would not arise.

4.3. He submits that the Geologist is not authorized

to file a complaint in respect of the aforesaid

offences and as such in terms of Section 17 of

the Stone Crushers Act, 2011 no court shall

take cognizance of an offence punishable under

the Act or any Rules made thereunder except

upon a complaint in writing made by a person

authorised on behalf of licensing authority.

4.4. In the present case, there being no licence

which

has

been

granted,

the

Licensing

Authority would not have any power nor could

it exercise any power. Hence, the question of

taking action against the petitioner would not

arise.

4.5. On all the aforesaid grounds, he submits that

the petition is required to be allowed and the

- 6 -

proceeding initiated against the petitioner in

PCR No.33/2019 requires to be quashed.

5.

Sri.Rohit, learned HCGP would submit that:

5.1. Geologist has been authorised in terms of

notification issued by Commerce and Industries

Secretariat,

in

No.CI.21.MMM(2)

2014,

Bangalore, dated 21.01.2014 issued in exercise

of powers conferred under Subsection (3) and

(4) of Section 21 and 22 of MMDR Act, as also

under Sub-rule 3 of Rule 43 and 46 of KMCC

Rules. The reference to Geologist being found

at Sl.No.10 is respect of their own jurisdiction.

He therefore, submits that the Geologist being

the authorised person under the aforesaid

notification and having exercised power within

his jurisdiction, same cannot be faulted with.

5.2. The allegation which is made against the

petitioner is without obtaining Form-C, M-sand

- 7 -

has been generated.