Nafr High Court
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:5101 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 2054 of 2018 Chhattisgarh Environment Conservation Board Through Regional Officer, Regional Office, Bajrang Bhawan Namnakala Ring Road Ambikapur, District Ambikapur Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - M/s Chirimiri Colliery SECL Chirimiri Area, Post – Chirimiri District Korea Chhattisgarh, Through Shri J.K. Bighariya The Then General Manager Office of General Manager SECL Chirimiri Area Post West Chirimiri District Korea Chhattisgarh. 2 - Shri U.R. Yadav The Then Mines Manager M/s Chirimiri Colliery, SECL Chirimiri Area Post Chirimiri District Korea Chhattisgarh. 3 - Shri B. Choudhari Sub Area Manager (Present), M/s Chirimiri Colliery, SECL Chirimiri Area Post Chirimiri District Korea Chhattisgarh.
Legal Reasoning
4 - Shri Rakesh Kumar The Then Sub Area Manager, M/s Chirimiri Colliery SECL Chirimiri Area Post Chirimiri District Korea Chhattisgarh. 5 - Shri R.G. Swarnakar The Then Sub Area Manger, M/s Chirimiri Colliery SECL Chirimiri Area Post Chirimiri District Korea Chhattisgarh. 6 - Shri Shivram Basendra The Then Sub Area Manger, M/s Chirimiri Colliery SECL Chirimiri Area Post Chirimiri District Korea Chhattisgarh. Present Address Through Director (Personnel) Bharat Cooking Coal Ltd. Dhanbad Jharkhand. 7 - Shri Dilip Kumar Ghosh General Manager (Present) Office Of General Manager SECL Chirimiri Area, Post Office West Chirimiri RAHUL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by RAHUL DEWANGAN Date: 2025.01.29 10:43:30 +0530 2 District Korea Chhattisgarh. At Present General Manager SECL Chirimiri Area Post Office West Chirimiri District Korea Chhattisgarh. 8 - M/s South Eastern Coalfields Limited M/s Chirimiri Colliery Post Office Chirimiri District Korea Chhattisgarh. Through A.K. Singh The Then Chairman Cum Managing Director SECL HQ, Seepat Road Bilaspur Distirict Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. ---- Respondents For Petitioner For Respondents : : Mr. Manish Nigam, Advocate. None. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 27.01.2025 Order on Board 1. Heard Mr. Manish Nigam, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. None appears on behalf of the private respondents. 2. The petitioner has filed the instant petition under Section 482 of CrPC for being aggrieved by the order dated 11.08.2017 passed in Criminal Complaint Case No. 79/2016 by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Baikunthpur, Camp - Chirmiri, District – Korea (C.G.), whereby the learned trial Court has allowed the application filed by the respondent/accused persons under Section 30 of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 and discharged the accused persons and closed the Criminal Complaint Case filed by the petitioner Board for the offence under Sections 15 and 16 of the Environment Protection Act, 1986. 3. The prosecution story, in short, is that the M/s SECL Company is an Industry and operating Mines for Excavation of the Coal. The 3 respondent No. 1 M/s Chirimiri Colliery, is one of the colliery of Chirimiri Area of SECL and the head of the area is the General Manager. The respondent No. 2 and 6 are the Mines Manager and the respondent No. 3, 4 and 5 are Sub Area Manager and the respondent No. 1 and 7 is General Manager and respondent No. 8 is the company of the M/s SECL. All the accused person are occupier of the company i.e. SECL and they are controlled over the affairs of the Chirimiri Colliery of the M/s SECL. They are In- charge of and was responsible to the company for the conduct and business of the company. As per the facts of the complaint case in short is that the Govt. of India, Ministry of Environment and Forest, New Delhi issued a Environment Impact Assessment Notification dated 27.01.1994, 10.04.2009 and 14.09.2006 under Sub Section (1), Clause (V) of Sub Section (2) of section 3 of Environment Protection Act, 1986 read with Clause- (a) of Sub Rule (3) of Rule 5 of the Environment Protection Rules 1986, whereby, the Central Government imposed restrictions and prohibitions on the expansion and modernization of any activity or new project being undertaken in any part of India unless Environmental clearance has been accorded by the Central or State Government in accordance with the procedure specified in that notification. 4. Further case was is that M/s Chirimiri Colliery Chirimiri Area of SECL was granted consent for excavation of 10 Lakhs MT Coal per year by the M.P. Pollution Control Board on 17.09.1999 under 4 section 25, 26 of the water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 and section 21 of AIR (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981. The accused persons i.e. officers of the M/s Chirimiri Colliery Chirimiri Area of SECL has been increasing their production capacity and excavated coal to the tune of 1385525 MT during the year 2002-2003 and gradually increasing 1459845 MT during the year 2006-2007. Which was more than for which the consent was given by the petitioner Board. Hence, the accused persons excavated coal not only in excess of the quantity for which consent was given to them but also excavated coal and increased its production capacity without obtaining prior environmental clearance from Ministry of Environment and Forest Government of India as required under the Environment Impact Assessment Notification issued by the Central Government under the Provisions of Environment Protection Act, 1986. Hence, violated the section 6 and 7 of the Act, 1986, which are punishable under Sections 15 and 16 of the Environment Protection Act, 1986. The respondents/accused persons also operated the mines without obtaining the prior permission of their increasing capacity from the petitioner Board as required under the water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 and section 21 of AIR (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981. In this regard several letters and reminders, were sent to the accused persons by the office of the Board. The accused persons was also issued several notices and directions under the 5 Environmental Law, but they are paid no heed to them and continued excavating the coal in violation of the Environmental Law. Since, these acts, of the accused persons were in complete breach of the consent granted to them under the water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 and section 21 of AIR (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 and also violative of section 6 and 7 and section 3(1)(2) part-V of the Environment Protection Act, 1986, which is punishable under Section 15 and 16 of the said Act. Ultimately, the petitioner i.e. C.G. Environment Conservation Board, through, its Regional Officer, Ambikapur filed a Criminal Complaint Case before the learned JFMC Baikunthpur, Distt. Korea against the officers responsible to M/s Chirimiri Colliery, Chirimiri Area of SECL for the offence punishable under section 15 and 16 of the Environment and Protection Act, 1986. The above complaint was registered as Criminal Complaint Case No. 79/2016 by the learned JMFC Baikunthpur and after taking cognizance of the offence under the said Act, and process was issued against the accused persons for their appearance before the Court. After serving the notice, the respondents/accused No. 1, 2, 5, 6 and 8 did not appear before the Court and only respondents No. 3, 4 and 7 has appeared before the Court and filed an application under Section 30 of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 before the learned JFMC and stated that the complainant Regional Officer and C.G. Environment Conservation Board was not competent to file 6 complaint case as per section 30 of the Act, 2010 as they are not authorized by the Central Government to file complaint case. In the above application the accused persons has further stated that after formation of Green Tribunal any Civil Court does not having any jurisdiction to entertain any matter according to section 29 of the Act, 2010. Therefore, he is praying for dismissal of complaint case. The petitioner i.e. complainant Board has filed their reply to the above application and denied all the contention made their under and specifically stated that as per the facts and circumstances of the case the provisions of National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 was not applicable to the present case. The complainant Board and its Regional Officer has empowered to file complaint case under the Environmental Law. After hearing the parties the learned JMFC has passed the impugned order dated 11.08.2017 and wrongly held that after enforcement of the N.G.T. Act, 2010 the Green Tribunal has been constituted and according to the provisions of Section 14 and 29 of the Act, 2010 the magistrate has not having jurisdiction to try the complaint case. Therefore, case has been closed and accused persons are discharged from the alleged offence. Hence, this petition. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that before the trial Court the main grounds raised by the respondents is that the complainant Regional Officer of the C.G. Environment Conservation Board was not competent to file complaint and he was not authorized by the Board are Central Government 7 therefore, cognizance taken by the Magistrate against the provisions of section 19 of te Environment Protection 1986. In the present case complaint has been filed by the C.G. Environment Conservation Board, through its Regional Officer and the Regional Officer is authorized on behalf of the Board to file Criminal Complaint as provided under the law. It is further submitted that all the Regional Officer of the C.G. Environment Conservation Board, are authorized to file complaint case under Section 49 of the water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 and section 43 of the AIR (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 by meeting No. 68 dated 18.04.1991 of M.P. Pollution Control Board and it was decided that all other officer by post including the concerned Regional Officer, where authorized to do all Act, concerning the court cases and all other Acts, relating the Court proceedings. The Chhattisgarh Environment Conservation Board, of the state of Chhattisgarh in its first meeting held on 09.08.2001 decided to adopt all the decisions taken by the M.P. Pollution Control Board, taken in all their meeting held by the Board. It is also submitted that under section 19 of the Environment Protection Act, 1986, the Central Government has authorized to Regional Officer of the State Pollution Control Board for taking the cognizance of offences. All the orders/letters of authorization is filed by the petitioner i.e. complainant Board along with the complaint case before the learned JMFC, which was overlooked by the trial Court. From the 8 above facts the authority of the Regional Officer to file the complaint is perfectly legal, correct and proper, therefore, impugned order passed by the learned Magistrate is illegal and improper and liable to be set-aside. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the materials available on record. 7. Considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, and from the perusal of the judgments/orders of the trial Court, it transpires that no good ground has been raised by the counsel for the petitioner in the present case showing the importance of the present petition for quashment of the impugned order, thus, it is clear that after considering all the materials and after applying mind the learned trial Court has passed the impugned order dated 11.08.2017 passed in Criminal Complaint Case No. 79/2016 by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Baikunthpur, Camp - Chirmiri, District – Korea (C.G.), whereby the learned trial Court has allowed the application filed by the respondent/accused persons under Section 30 of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 and discharged the accused persons and closed the Criminal Complaint Case filed by the petitioner Board for the offence under Sections 15 and 16 of the Environment Protection Act, 1986, and there is no illegality and infirmity while passing the impugned order. 8. Accordingly, the instant petitioner under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is 9 devoid of merits, liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 9. A copy of this order be sent to the concerned trial Court for necessary compliance and follow up action, if any. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Rahul Dewangan