1 2025:CGHC:42973 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 1380 of 2019 Chhattisgarh Environment Conservation Board Through Regional Manager (Officer) Regional Office, 5/32 Bungalow, Bhilai, District- Durg, Chhattisgarh., District : Durg, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner versus 1 - M/s Jhuradabri (Quartz And Silica) Minning, Village Jhuradabri, Post And Police Station Somni, District- Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Gautamchand Dakliya S/o Late Jivchand Dakliya R/o Sadar Bazar, Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Amrito Das, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : None Hon’ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 25/08/2025 1. By this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the petitioner-Chhattisgarh Environment Conservation Board (for short, the Board) seeks quashing of the order dated 20.02.2019 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Rajnandgaon in Criminal Revision No. 85/2018 whereby it has allowed the revision petition filed by the respondents herein who had challenged the order dated 08.06.2018 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Rajnandgaon in Criminal Complaint Case No. 2075/2010 by which the objection filed by 2 the respondents with regard to maintainability of the criminal complaint, was rejected. 2. Mr. Amrito Das, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner-Board submits that the Board is a statutory body which has the responsibility to ensure necessary compliance of the mandates provided under the various Environment Protection laws. According to Mr. Das, the respondents were engaged in mining of Quartz and Silica mineral at village Jhuradabri, District Rajnandgaon. On inspection of the concerned premises, it was revealed that the respondents were engaged in mining without the necessary authorization and permission required under Section 44 and 47 of the Water (Prevention and Control) Pollution Act, 1974 and Section 37 and 40 of the Air (Prevention and Control) Pollution Act, 1981. It was also found that the lease granted to them by the Collector had ended way back on 28.01.2007 and upon this and other discrepancies, the petitioner-Board preferred a complaint against the respondents for necessary action. The said petition was duly contested by the respondents herein by filing an application on 09.10.2017 challenging the maintainability. The learned trial Court, after due consideration, dismissed the application of the respondents vide order dated 08.06.2018 which was challenged by the respondents before the learned Sessions Judge, which was allowed vide order dated 20.02.2019. The said order is under challenge in this petition. 3. Mr. Das submits that the order passed by the learned revisional Court is baseless, irrational and unwarranted and deserves to be set aside. The learned revisional Court did not appreciate the fact that prima facie a case was made out against the respondents and there was ample proof of evidence available in favour of the petitioners. The authority to prefer the complaint was duly delegated to the Regional Officer and hence, the 3 complaint was duly constituted and did not deserved any interference by the learned revisional Court. There was a specific sanction in the case granted by the Member Secretary of the petitioner-Board vide letter dated 08.01.2010. Hence, this petition deserves to be allowed and the order passed by the learned revisional Court deserves to be quashed. 4. I have gone through the materials available on record as also the order of the learned revisional Court as well as the trial Court. 5. This petition came up for hearing before the learned Single Judge for the first time on 21.06.2019 and on the request of learned counsel for the petitioner, the matter was adjourned for two weeks, however, the matter was never listed before the Court and has come up for the second time today after a lapse of about six years. The petitioner-Board does not seem to be interested in prosecuting the matter as no application was filed for hearing of the matter after 21.06.2019. No notices have either been issued to the respondents. 6. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner-Board is that the Board was constituted vide order dated 25.07.2001 issued by the Government of Chhattisgarh, Ministry of Housing and Environment and the Chairman/Secretary of the Board had issued an office order dated 11.09.2002 by which all the Regional Officers have been empowered to file suit on behalf of the Board. Hence, as per the notification issued by the Board, the Regional Officer was competent to file the criminal complaint. The said contention was challenged by the respondents before the learned revisional Court also stating that the Regional Officer was not the competent authority to file the criminal complaint. The learned revisional Court has observed that the Chairman/Secretary of the Board had not given any specific authority or written permission to any departmental officer to file a complaint under Section 44 of the Water 4 (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act 1981. Therefore, it cannot be believed that the Regional Officer was authorized to file the complaint under Section 49 of this Act. Thus, without following the mandatory provisions of the case, the complaint filed by the Regional Officer against the respondents was dismissed being not maintainable . 7. The order passed by the learned revision Court is a reasoned one and as such, we do not find any illegality or irregularity in the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge and as such, this petition, being devoid of merit, is accordingly dismissed. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) CHIEF JUSTICE Amit AMIT KUMAR DUBEY Digitally signed by AMIT KUMAR DUBEY Date: 2025.08.28 20:09:30 +0530