1 2025:CGHC:5011 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 2068 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 Kurasiya Colliery Secl Chirimiri Area Post- West Chirimiri District Korea Chhattisgarh , Through Shri K.P. Singh The Then General Manager Office Of General Manager Secl Chirimiri Area Post West Chirimiri District Korea Chhattisgarh. 2 - Shri N. Senapati Mine Manager (Present) M/s Kurasiya Colliery Secl Chirimiri Area , Post West Chirimiri District Korea Chhattisgarh. 3 - Shri J. Singh The Then Mines Manager, M/s Kurasiya Colliery Secl Chirimiri Area Post West Chirimiri District Korea Chhattisgah. 4 - Shri B. Choudhary Sub Area Manager (Present ) M/s Kurasiya Colliery Secl Chirimiri Area, Post West Chirimiri District Korea Chhattisgarh. 5 - Shri R.G. Swarnkar The Then Sub Area Manager M/s Kurasiya Colliery Secl Chirimiri Area, Post West Chirimiri District Korea Chhattisgarh. KUNAL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by KUNAL DEWANGAN 2 6 - Shri Dilip Kumar Ghosh General Manager (Present) Offece Of General Manager Secl Chirimiri Area Post West Chirimiri District Korea Chhatisgarh At Present General Manager Secl Chirimiri Area Post Office West Chirimiri District Korea Chhattisgarh. 7 - M/s South Eastern Coalfields Limited Chirimiri Colliery, Post Office Chirimiri District Korea Chhattisgarh. Through A.K. Singh Chairman Cum Managing Director (Present) SECL HQ, Seepat Road Bilaspur District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Manish Nigam, Advocate. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 28/01/2025 1. Heard Mr. Manish Nigam, learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking following relief: “It is therefore, prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the record of the court below and set-aside/quashed the impugned order dated 11.08.2017 (Annexure P/1) passed by the learned JMFC, Baikunthpur, Camp Chirimiri, Distt. Korea (C.G.), in Criminal Complaint case No. 76/2016, in the interest of justice. It is also prayed that the Hon'ble Court may pass such order as it deem fit in the facts and circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice.” 3 3. Brief facts necessary for disposal of this petition are that the M/s Kurasiya Colliery, Chirimiri Area of SECL, was granted consent by the M.P. Pollution Control Board on October 27, 1994, to excavate 82,855 MT of coal per month under the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974, and the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981. However, the accused persons, who are officers of the M/s Kurasiya Colliery, increased their production capacity and excavated coal in excess of the consented quantity. Specifically in 1994-1995, they excavated 1,060,320 MT of coal, which is more than the consented quantity, iIn 2007-2008, they excavated 1,759,356 MT of coal, which is significantly more than the consented quantity. The accused persons not only exceeded the consented quantity but also increased their production capacity without obtaining prior environmental clearance from the Ministry of Environment and Forest, Government of India, as required under the Environment Impact Assessment Notification issued by the Central Government under the Environment Protection Act, 1986. 4. By this, the accused persons violated Sections 6 and 7 of the Environment Protection Act, 1986, which are punishable under sections 15 and 16 of the same Act. Additionally, the respondents/accused persons operated the mines without obtaining the previous permission of the petitioner Board for increasing their capacity, as required under the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974, and the Air (Prevention and 4 Control of Pollution) Act, 1981. The Chhattisgarh Environment Conservation Board sent several letters and reminders to the accused persons, but they ignored them and continued to excavate coal in violation of environmental laws. The accused persons were also issued notices and directions under environmental laws, but they failed to comply with them. The actions of the accused persons were in breach of the consent granted to them under the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974, and the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981. The accused persons' actions were also in violation of sections 6 and 7 of the Environment Protection Act, 1986, which is punishable under sections 15 and 16 of the same Act. 5. The Chhattisgarh Environment Conservation Board, through its Regional Officer in Ambikapur, filed a complaint case against the officers responsible for M/s Kurasiya Colliery, Chirimiri Area of SECL, for offenses punishable under sections 15 and 16 of the Environment Protection Act, 1986. The complaint was registered as Criminal Complaint Case No. 73/2016 by the Judicial Magistrate First Class (JMFC) in Baikunthpur, and the court took cognizance of the offense and issued process against the accused persons for their appearance in court. It appears that the respondents/accused persons (No. 1, 3, 5, and 6) failed to appear before the court after being served with a notice. However, respondents/accused persons (No. 2, 4, and 7) did appear before 5 the court and filed an application under Section 30 of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010. In their application, the accused persons argued the complainant Regional Officer and the Chhattisgarh Environment Conservation Board (C.G. Environment Conservation Board) were not competent to file a complaint case, as they were not authorized by the Central Government to do so under Section 30 of the Act. After the formation of the National Green Tribunal, any civil court (including the court where the complaint was filed) does not have jurisdiction to entertain any matter related to environmental cases, as per Section 29 of the Act. 6. The learned JMFC passed an order on 11.08.2017, which is being challenged, stating that after the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 came into effect, the Green Tribunal was established, and according to Sections 14 and 29 of the Act, the magistrate no longer has jurisdiction to try the complaint case. As a result, the case was closed, and the accused persons were discharged from the alleged offense. Hence, this petition. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner, considered his rival submissions made hereinabove and also perused the documents annexed with petition. 8. From perusal of the record, it transpires that the complainant had submitted a complaint against the respondents on 03.09.2011 under Sections 15 and 16 of the Environment Protection Act, 6 1986. In Section 1 of the complaint, the complainant has mentioned that the Chhattisgarh Environment Protection Board was constituted under the powers conferred by Section 4 of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974, and Section 4 of the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981. The primary issue to be considered in this case is whether, after the enactment of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010, the Judicial Magistrate First Class has the jurisdiction to hear the case. Section 14 of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 stipulates that the Tribunal has the jurisdiction to resolve all legal rights related to the environment, and that it also has jurisdiction over all matters listed under Schedule-1 of the Act. 9. Further, the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010, has authorized the Tribunal to handle cases related to the Water Pollution Control and Prevention Act, 1974, and the Air Pollution Control and Prevention Act, 1981, as listed in Schedule 1. Given that the Tribunal came into effect on 18.10.2010, and the present case was filed on 03.09.2011, it seems that the court does not have the jurisdiction to hear environmental cases. As a result, the complaint filed by the complainant does not appear to be maintainable at first glance. In this regard, Section 29 of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010, is relevant. Since the Court does not have the jurisdiction to hear the case, it cannot be heard by the trial Court. Considering the entire circumstances of the case, the application filed by the respondents under Section 30 of the National Green 7 Tribunal Act, 2010, was accepted by the Court, and the case was dismissed, which warrants no interference by this Court. 10. Accordingly, the petition being bereft of any merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) CHIEF JUSTICE Kunal