JUDGMENT :

(per Mr. G. Narendar C. J.

Heard learned Senior Counsel for the applicant and learned Deputy Advocate General for the State.

2. The brief facts of the case are that on 06.01.2025 Co-ordinate Bench of this Court had directed the stoppage of all mining activities in Bageshwar District after taking note of the precarious situation created by the mining activities.

3. The instant petitioner was an intervening applicant in IA No.15 of 2025 in the said Suo Motu PIL registered by this Court as WPPIL No.174 of 2024. Post the ban imposed by this court, the Director of the Department of Mines and Geology issued orders prohibiting of all mining activities, including transportation. Consequently, the E-Ravanna portal in respect of Bageshwar District came to be shut down thereby issue of transport permits for transporting material in Bageshwar District were stopped.

4. It so happened that during the course of hearing of said petition, it was brought to the notice of this Court by the petitioner/Amicus Curiae and the District Mining Officer (DMO) that the instant petitioner was carrying on rampant transportation of crushed minerals from his site despite this Court calling upon the petitioner and similarly situated persons to produce the documents relating to their ownership of the material and the legal shipment of the material to the crusher site, no documents were placed before this Court.

5. On directions of this Court machineries involved in illegal mining contrary to the SEIAA permission and contrary to the conditions imposed on the consent for operation by the Pollution Control Board were seized and, thereafter, on the direction of this court the DMO inspected the petitioner’s premises and seized a register which on a bare perusal reveals transportation being carried out by the petitioner without obtaining any transport permits and without demonstrating his legal ownership over the material found therein.

6. The DMO seized the register and other documents, sealed the premises and lodged the police complaint. It is on this background that the petitioner is before this court.

7. It is contended by the learned Senior Counsel that the complaint itself is not maintainable in view of the provisions of the Mining Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 (for short, “the Act”) and would place reliance on Section 22 of the Act to contend that cognizance could not have been taken on a police report.

8. Admittedly, the acts of the petitioner do not merely contravene the provisions of the Act but also, prima facie, appears to constitute offences punishable under the BNS 2023, more particularly, the facts as narrated in the complaint would, prima facie, appears to constitute offences under Section 223, 318(3) and 336(3) read with Section 340 of the BNS Act.

9. The allegation against the petitioner is that there is no document produced to demonstrate the ownership, which would also constitute an offence of illegal mining on government property

10. That part, the allegation is that E-Ravanna passes issued in the District Pithoragarh have been blatantly misused for carrying out the transportation in Bageshwar District which is contrary to the rules.

11. Per contra, learned Deputy Advocate General would submit that the petitioner is indulged in the illegal transportation despite being aware of the orders of this Court and the directions issued by the Director and that was the cause of action for the intervention application and the plea that he was not aware of the direction of this court and the directions issued by the competent authority i.e. Director of Mining and Geology are baseless.

12. As regards the contention regarding the maintainability of the complaint, it is no more res integra. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Kanwar Pal Singh Vs. State of U.P. reported in (2014) 14 SCC 331 has been pleased to hold in paragraph nos.9, 10 and 11 as under:

“ 9. This Court in Sanjay [State (NCT of Delhi) v. Sanjay, (2014) 9 SCC 772: