THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH MCRC-8837-2012 (G.P. KUNDARGI Vs M.P. STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD)

Jabalpur, Dated : 20-03-2018 .............Petitioner (G.P. KUNDARGI Vs M.P. STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD...............Respondent)

For the petitioner No.1: Mr.R.N.Singh, Senior Counsel with Mr.Akshay Pawar, Advocate For the petitioners: Mr.Sankalp Kochar, Advocate No.2 to 5 For the respondent: Mr.V.S.Shroti, Senior Advocate with Mr.Sourav Soni, Advocate ==================================

Present: Hon'ble Mr.Justice Sushil Kumar Palo

O R D E R

[20/03/2018]

The petitioners have jointly filed this petition under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure t o invoke the inherent jurisdiction of this Court and to quash the Criminal Case Nro.339/2010 registered before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Balaghat.

2. Briefly stated, the facts given rise to filing of this case are that the respondent-Madhya Pradesh Pollution Control Board (hereinafter referred to as the "PCB") filed a criminal complaint case before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhopal ahgainst the petitioners vide Annexure-A-3 under sections 15, 19 and 21 of the gEnvironment (Protection) Act, 1986 [for brevity "1986 Act"] contending that the PCB ihas been constituted under section 4 of the Water (Prevention & Control of Pollution)

Act, 1974 [for short "1974 Act"]. The Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 empowers the Regional Officer of PCB to file complaint under section 19 of the Act of 1986. 3 It is claimed that on 23.3.2009 the Department of Environment and Forest Ministry, Government of India, New Delhi issued a letter to the PCB that the Manganese Ore India Limited (for short "MOIL"), Balaghat while operating the manganese ore quarry and its Beneficiation Plant situated at villages Bharveli, Hirapur, Manegaon, Manjhara, Ablajiri and Tawejiri, Tahsil, District Balaghat have been operating without obtaining sanction under the 1986 Act. Hence, the PCB be directed to initiate action under section 19 of the 1986 Act. PCB, therefore, issued a letter dated 13.4.2009 and 07.11.2009 to the Regional Officer, Jabalpur to initiate action against MOIL, Balaghat under section 19 of the 1986 Act. By letter dated 19.5.2009 M/s.MOIL intimated that for the quarry of manganese ore in Balaghat, a Beneficiation Plant has been established and is operational since 07.1.2008. The production has been shown to be 9376 Metric Ton (MT) in the year 2007-08; 86997 MT in 2008-09 and 7300 MT in April, 2009. It is stated that before the Beneficiation Plant has been established and became operational, an environmental clearance ought to have been obtained by MOIL, as per the requirement of notification dated 14.9.2006. But, no such clearance/sanction has been obtained.

4. On 22.3.2009, the Department of Environment and Forest, New Delhi given the clearance/sanction. Therefore, the Beneficiation Plant has been established and functional from 07.1.2008 till 23.2.2009 is without valid sanction from the Department of Environment and Forest.

5. The petitioner No.1-G.P.Kundargi is the Director of the Process & Planning.

The petitioner No.2-V.N.Chandrakar, the then Incharge Agent, under whose supervision the Beneficiation Plant was constructed. The petitioner No.3-M.P. Patel is the Agent of MOIL, Bharveli Office and is now the Incharge of Beneficiation Plant. The Petitioner No.4 is P.Karaiya who is the Manager of the Balaghat Madnganese Ore quarry and Manganese Beneficiation Plant. The petitioner No.5 is thae M/s.Manganese Ore India Limited through its Manager K.Chandrakar. The petitioners No.1 to 4 are responsible persons for the operation of the plant and also responsible for day to day business of the Manganese Beneficiation Plant and, therefore, aare liable under section 15 of the 1986 Act.

6. On behalf of the petitioner No.1-G.P.Kundargi, it is claimed that he has been appointed as the Director (Production & Planning) MOIL as per order dated 15.6.2010 issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Steel and su