1 2025:CGHC:21791 AFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Order Reserved on 03/03/2025 Order Delivered on 09/05/2025 CRMP No. 2593 of 2019 1 - Steel Authority of India Limited (Bhilai Steel Plant) Mahamaya Dulki Iron And Mines, Mahamaya, Tehsil Daundi, District Balod Chhattisgarh, Through Its Power of Attorney Holder Shri Vinod Kumar Verma 2 - Shri S.K. Saha E.D. Mines, Room No. 584, 5th Floor , Ispat Bhawan , Bhilai Steel Plant , Bhilai , District Durg Chhattisgarh 3 - Shri S.K. Mishra Assistant General Manager, Mines Room No. 5B , Ispat Bhawan , Bhilai Steel Plant, Bhilai , District Durg Chhattisgarh 4 - Shri N.K. Mandal Deputy General Manager , Mines Through General Manager Mines , Iron Ore Complex , Dallirajhra, District Balod Chhattisgarh. 5 - Shri Pradip Kumar Sinha General Manager , Mines, Room No. 584 , 5th Floor, Ispat Bhawan , Bhilai Steel Plant, Bhilai , District Durg Chhattisgarh 6 - Shri A.K. Mishra General Manager, Mines Room No. 584, 5th Floor, Ispat Bhawan , Bhilai Steel Plant, Bhilai District Durg Chhattisgarh 7 - Shri Dhananjai Singh The Then Mine Manager Through General Manager, Mines, Iron Ore Complex, Dallirajhra, District Balod Chhattisgarh 8 - Shri Tapan Sutradhar The Then Mine Manager Through General Manager Mines, Iron Ore Complex , Dallirajhra , District Balod Chhattisgarh 2 9 - Shri D.K. Salam The Then Mine Manager Through General Manager, Mines , Iron Ore Complex , Dallirajhara , District Balod Chhattisgarh 10 - Shri M.K.T.P. Dutta The Then Mine Manager D.G.M. Planning And Development (R.M.D) Project Building , Rourkela Steel Plant, Post Office Rourkela, District Sundargarh, Odisha, Pin 769011 11 - Shri C. Srikant The Then Mine Manager, Through General Manager, Mines Iron Ore Complex , Dallirajhra , District Balod Chhattisgarh 12 - Shri R.K. Sinha The Then Mine Manager Through General Manager, Mines Iron Ore Complex , Dallirajhara , District Balod Chhattisgarh ... Petitioners versus The Regional Officer Chhattisgarh Environment Conservation Board, Regional Office , 5/32 Bunglow, Bhilai, District Durg Chhattigarh ... Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Ms. Pinki Anand, Mr. Rupesh Kumar, Senior Advocates assisted by Mr. Ankit Singhal and Ms. Saudamini Sharma, Advocates. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Abhijeet Mishra, Advocate. Hon’ble Mr. Arvind Kumar Verma, Judge C A V Order 1. Challenge in this petition, filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, the Cr.P.C.) is to the order dated 29.03.2019 passed by the 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Balod, District Balod, in Criminal Revision No. 59/2018 by which the revision petition filed by the petitioners challenging the order dated 11.09.2017 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Dalli Rajhara, District Balod, in Criminal 3 Case No. 422/2017 has been rejected affirming the order dated 11.09.2017. 2. The facts, in brief, as projected by the petitioners are that the petitioners are that the petitioner No. 1 is a Government Company incorporated and registered under the Companies Act, 1956/2013 and is the largest producer of iron and steel in India. The petitioners No. 2 to 12 are or were the officials of the petitioner No. 1 Company. Hindustan Steel Ltd. (now SAIL) was granted a mining lease over an area of 1522 ha at Mahamaya- Dulki Area in Durg District for mining of Iron Ore for a period of 30 years i.e. 04.11.1971 03.11.2001 by the erstwhile State of Madhya Pradesh on 05.05.1971. At the time of grant of lease, both Mahamaya & Dulki Ridges were in the administrative control of Durg District. Subsequently, with the formation of new District (Rajnandgaon), Dulki has fallen under Rajnandgaon District. The Ministry of Environment Forest and Climate Change (for short, the MoEFCC) issued Notification [EIA 1994] on on 27.01.1994 on Environment Impact Assessment of Development Projects stipulating that on and from the date of publication of this Notification in the official gazette, expansion or modernization of any activity (if pollution load to exceed the existing one) or a new project listed in Schedule I, shall not be undertaken in any part of India unless it has been accorded Environment Clearance (EC) by the Central Govt. in accordance with the procedure specified in the Notification. In para 8 of the ‘Explanatory Note’ under the heading "Exemption for project already initiated" it was stated that "for projects listed in Schedule I to the Notification in respect of which required land has been acquired and all relevant clearances of the State Govt. including NOC from the respective State Pollution Control Board has been obtained before 27.01.1994, a project proponent will not be required to seek EC from the IAA". SAIL 4 applied for renewal of mining lease on 02.11.2000 which was renewed on 04.11.2021 in terms of provisions of Rule 24A of MCR for 20 years w.e.f. 04.01.2001 to 03.11.2021. On 12.02.2002, the Ministry issued Circular regarding applicability of EIA 1994 to renewal cases of mining lease, clarifying that EC is not required at the time of renewal of mining lease if there is no increase in the originally sanctioned lease area and/or production. On 28.10.2004, the Ministry issued another Circular and, further clarified that all mining projects of major minerals of more than 5 Ha lease area which have so far not obtained an EC under the EIA 1994 shall do so at the time of renewal of their lease in the context of SC Judgment dated 18.03.2004 in the case of M.C. Mehta v UoI & Others {(2004) 12 SCC 118. The term "Expansion" in point III(c) was explained that if the annual production of any year from 1994-95 onwards exceeds the annual production of 1993-94 or its preceding years (even if approved by IBM) it would constitute expansion. SAIL has never exceeded 1993-94 production level [0.96 MTPA] of iron ore from this mining lease. 3. The MoEFCC issued Notification (EIA 2006") on 14.09.2006 in suppression of EIA 1994, directing that on and from the date of its publication the required construction of new projects or mining activities or the expansion or modernisation of existing projects or activities listed in the Schedule to this notification entailing capacity addition with change in process and or technology shall be undertaken in any part of India only after the prior EC from the Central Government or as the case may be, by the State Legal Environment Impact Assessment Authority, in accordance with the procedure specified in this Notification. On 12.12.2006, the SAIL planned to enhance the production capacity from existing 0.96 ΜΤΡΑ to 1.46 MTPA, by opening a new mining block i.e. 5 Dulki covering area of 60 Ha. Accordingly, in terms of EIA 2006, SAIL applied for grant of EC on priority basis. Thereafter, on 02.07.2007, the Government of India issued circular clarifying that all mining projects which did not need EIA clearance (EC) under the EIA Notification 2006 would require EIA clearance at the time when mining lease falls due for renewal if there was no increase in production or lease area. Since SAIL lease did not fall for renewal till 2021 and had no increase in mining area or production and thus did not require EIA/EC clearance. In the meantime, a complaint was received in PMO against SAIL Dulki Mines to PMO regarding adverse environment impact. SAIL immediately responded and clarified all issues. The MoEFCC sent a letter to Govt. of Chhattisgarh, Department of Environment on 10.01.2013 to initiate action against the project proponent as per law and procedure, with intimation to the Ministry. On 26.03.2015, the SAIL was granted EC by MoEFCC for enhancement of production capacity from 0.96 to 1.46 ΜΤΡΑ. 4. Thereafter, a complaint case was filed by complainant on 31.01.2017 after lapse of more than 4 years i.e. by Regional Officer, Chhattisgarh Environment Conservation Board against SAIL u/s 19 read with Section 15 and 16 of the EP Act, 1986 & S. 43 of Water Act for violation of EIA 2006. The learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Dalli-Rajhara, District Balod took cognizance of the complaint and issued process on 11.09.2017. Being aggrieved with the same, the SAIL filed Criminal Revision No.59/2018 under section 397 of Cr.P.C before the learned 1st Additional District Judge, Balod who dismissed the said revision vide order dated 29.03.2019 which is sought to be challenged herein. 5. Ms. Pinky Anand as well as Mr. Rupesh Kumar, learned Senior Advocates appearing on behalf of the petitioners submit that the Hon'ble High Court shall be correct in exercising its inherent powers under 6 section 482 of the Cr.P.C to prevent abuse of the process of law or to otherwise secure the ends of justice where it finds that the allegations made in the FIR or complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused or where it finds that the uncontroverted allegations made in the complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused. A bare perusal of the facts and allegations made in the complaint filed by the respondent under Section 15 & 16 read with Section 3(1), 2(5) of the Environment (Protection) Act 1986 read with Section 34 IPC, do not show even prima facie case against the petitioners. It has been admitted in the complaint that SAIL had all requisite permissions and approval under the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 and Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1975, for the mining capacity of 0.96 MT and the same were renewed regularly from the period 22.06.1993 till 31.07.2016. However, by erroneously relying upon Circulars dated 12.02.2002, 28.10.2004, 07.12.2004 and 25.04.2005, it has ben alleged that the SAIL was required to obtain EC at the time of renewal of its Mining Lease which was valid till 03.01.2001. It has been further alleged that without obtaining EC, SAIL continued its mining activities and mined the following quantities of iron ore. It is admitted in the complaint that the production during the period from 2001-02 till 2014-15 were well within the sanctioned production capacity of 0.96 ΜΤΡΑ and therefore, no enhancement of sanctioned capacity. The same was admitted in the reply by the respondent that admittedly, that there was no increase in the originally sanctioned lease area and/or production level by the petitioner Industry with regard to the subject mine as is also confirmed by the 7 Regional Officer of MoEF. It was alleged that such mining activities were also in violation of EIA Notification dated 14.09.2006 issued under the Environment (Protection) Act 1986, punishable under Sections 15 and 16 read with Section 3(1), (2) clause 5 of the said Act. 6. Ms. Anand submits that the EIA Notification dated 27.01.1994 read with of Para 8 of the Explanation Note regarding the Impact Assessment Notification date 27.01.1994 clearly granted exemption to SAIL to obtain EC, as it had all the relevant clearance of the State Government including NOC from the State Pollution Control Board and the production also started much prior to 27.01.1994. As admitted in the complaint, the mining lease was valid upto 03.11.2001 and, thereafter, it was due for renewal. The petitioners had duly filed application for renewal on 02.11.2000 i.e. at least one year from the date of lease expiry, as per the statutory requirement. In fact, the mining lease was renewed for a period of 20 years i.e. 04.11.2001 to 03.11.2021. During all these periods before, on and after 04.11.2001, the petitioners had been regularly filing environmental statements under Rule 14 of the E.P. Rules along with all other relevant statutory information. All the information were duly accepted by the authorities concerned and no dispute was ever raised regarding the requirement to obtain EC at the time of renewal of mining lease w.e.f. 04.11.2001. Further, SAIL had never increased the original sanctioned lease and/or production i.e. 0.96 ΜΤΡΑ [96000 Tonne), as also admitted in para 12 of the complaint. The fact that SAIL was not required to obtain EC at the time of renewal of mining lease valid upto 03.11.2001 is clearly supported by the Circular dated 12.02.2002 relied upon in the Complaint which clearly stipulated that EC was not required at the time of renewal of mining lease if there was no increase in the originally sanctioned lease and and/or production. As on the date of 8 applying for renewal of mining lease or till 03.11.2001, admittedly, petitioners had not increased its production and the same all along remained with in the sanctioned limit i.e. 0.96 ΜΤΡΑ [96000 Tonne] as per the figures stated in the complaint. The circular dated 28.10.2004 read with Corrigendum dated 07.12.2004 relied upon in the complaint, which modified the circular dated 12.02.2002, provided that all mining projects of major minerals of more than 5 ha. lease area which have so far not obtained an environment clearance under the EIA Notification 1994 shall do so at the time of renewal of their lease. The circular dated 25.04.2005 which is also relied upon in the complaint further stipulates that "mining units which continue to operate at pre-994 capacity or less and did not require renewal so far after the Notification(s) coming into force shall obtain environmental clearance at the time of renewal as and when due". 7. Ms. Anand next submits that the lease period was already extended for a period of 20 years w.e.f. 04.11.2001 much prior to the issuance of the said circulars dated 12.02.2002, 28.10.2004, 07.12.2004 and 24.05.2005, and the renewal of mining lease became due on the date of issuance of the respective three circulars only on 03.11.2021, the said circulars will have no bearing on the case of the petitioners and, rather, they support the case of the petitioners. Thus, reliance placed in the complaint on the said four circulars is totally misplaced. The petitioners have not violated EIA Notification dated 14.09.2006 which required prior EC for new projects. The petitioners’ project was not new and once the mining lease of the petitioners already got renewed prior to the issuance of the said EIA Notification dated 14.09.2006, there was no requirement of obtaining EC under the said Notification, as is clarified by MoEF vide Circular dated 02.07.2007 with regard to applicability of EIA Notification, 9 2006 stating that "all such mining projects which did not require environmental clearance under the EIA Notification 1994 would continue to operate without obtaining environmental clearance till the mining lease falls due for renewal, if there is no increase in the lease area and/or there is no enhancement of production". It is neither the allegation in the complaint nor is it a fact that the petitioners had ever increase either the lease area or there was enhancement of production. Insofar as the renewal of mining lease was concerned, that already got renewed prior to issuance of the said EIA Notification No. 14.09.2006, therefore, there cannot be any violation of said ΕΙΑ Notification. The petitioners had not violated provisions of EIA 2006 which requires that on and from the date of its publication the requirement construction of new projects or activities or the expansion or modernization of existing projects or activities listed in the schedule to the said EIA 2006 entailing capacity addition with the change in process or technology shall be undertaken only after the prior environment clearance from the Central Government or as the case may be, by the State Legal Environmental Impact Assessment Authority, in accordance with the procedure specified in the said EIA 2006. In fact, the petitioners have duly complied with EIA 2006 as once a decision was been made by SAIL for expansion in the production capacity, an application was filed on 12.12.2006 [@ Pg 246/Application Paper Book] for grant of EC on priority basis as a decision was taken to increase production capacity. In furtherance thereof, EC was granted on 26.03.2015. Further, during all such period, the petitioners have been granted CTO under Air and Water Act and the same are being renewed regularly since then as admitted in the Complaint also and there was no increase in the production which is also admitted in the complaint. The complaint, even if taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety 10 do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the petitioners. The learned Judicial Magistrate has issued process without appreciating the documents brought on record by the complainant. The order of the learned Magistrate summoning the accused must reflect that he has applied his mind to the fact of the case and the law applicable thereto. The learned Magistrate was required to examine the nature of allegations made in the complaint and the evidence, both oral and documentary in support thereof and as to whether that would be sufficient for proceeding against the accused. Reliance is placed on the decisions of the Supreme Court in matter of Pepsi Foods Ltd. & Another v. Special Judicial Magistrate, {(1998) 5 SCC 749} Inox Air Products Ltd. v. Stateo f A.P. {2025 INSC 128} and M/s. J.M. Laboratories & Others v. State of A.P. {2025 INSC 127}. 8. In the present case, it appears that while issuing summons, the learned Magistrate has not perused the documents and/or examined the nature of allegations made in the complaint as well as the evidence, both oral and documentary in support thereof. A bare perusal of EIA Notification along with Circulars referred to in the Complaint would have shown that the Petitioners have not committed any offence under the provisions of EP Act. Had the learned Judicial Magistrate would have looked into these documents forming part of the complaint, it would have clearly appreciated that there is nothing brought on record by the complainant to substantiate the allegation that the petitioners had violated provisions of EP Act or the Rules, Orders, Notifications and Circulars issued thereunder. No prima facie case has been made out against the Petitioners even by reading the averments/allegations made in the complaint. The learned Magistrate has also not recorded any reasons for issuing the process against the petitioners except for stating that the 11 complainant is a public servant and, thus, his statement or statement of other witnesses are not required to be recorded in terms of Section 200 Cr.P.C. before taking cognizance. Even the Court of learned 1" Addl. Sessions Judge, Balod, District-Balod, Chhattisgarh failed to correct the said jurisdictional errors through the impugned order dated 29.03.2019. It is alsos ubmitted by Ms. Anand that there is an inordinate delay in filing criminal complaint. Even though a decision was taken by MoEF vide letter dated 10.01.2013 to initiate action against the petitioners for allegedly violating provisions of EP Act, the criminal complaint came to be filed on 31.01.2017 after more than four years, for contravening provisions of Section 15 and 16 EP Act 1986 punishable for 5 years and fine. Reliance is placed on the judgment of the Apex Court in Hasmukhlal D Vora & Anr v. State of Tamil Nadu {(2022) 15 SCC 164}. In the present case, the respondent has provided no explanation for the delay of more than four years between the initial site inspection, the show cause notice and the complaint. In fact, the absence of such an explanation only prompts the Court to infer some sinister motive behind initiating the criminal proceedings. While inordinate delay in itself may not be ground for quashing of a criminal complaint, in such cases, unexplained inordinate delay of such length must be taken into consideration as a very crucial factor as grounds for quashing a criminal complaint. Hence, this petition deserves to be allowed. 9. On the other hand, Mr. Abhijeet Mishra, learned counsel for the respondent submits that the grievance of the Petitioner is that there was no "locus-standi" of the respondent (Complainant) to file a complaint under the provision of the EP Act as under the entire scheme of the aforesaid Act, there is no provision of delegation of power to the Chhattisgarh Environment Conservation Board i.e. the State Board or 12 officers of the State Board for the purposes of implementation of the provisions of the Environment Protection Act, 1986. Thus the complaint filed by the Respondent is not maintainable because of want of "locus- standi". The complaint filed by the respondent under Section 19 of the EP Act is with authorization, which makes the entire proceedings including all actions taken therein legal and under authority in law. In support of the aforesaid averments, Mr. Mishra submits that vide Notification S.O. 394(E) dated 16th April, 1987 the Central Government has authorized the Regional Officers of the State Environment Conservation Board for institution of complaint under Section 19 of the EP Act in exercise of the powers conferred under clause (a) of Section 19 of the EP Act. As per the aforesaid Notification, the Central Government had also delegated its power to file complaint under Section 19 of the EP Act to the Chairman or Member-Secretary of the State Pollution Control Board. Moreover the complainant had filed the Office Order dated 11.09.2002 along with the complaint as Annexure 2 wherein the Regional Officer of the Chhattisgarh Environment Conservation Board has been authorized by the Chairman, Chhattisgarh Environment Conservation Board to file complaints under EP Act. Thus, the objection of the petitioners that the complaint filed by the respondent under the EP Act is without any authorization, which makes the entire proceedings including all actions taken therein illegal and without any authority in law is not tenable and liable to be dismissed in light of the aforesaid submissions. It is submitted that as per the averments of the complaint at paragraph 12 it is stated that the petitioners were granted mining lease for 30 years whose validity was from 05.05.1971 to 03.01.2001. Before renewal of mining lease, it was mandatory for the petitioners to obtain proper EC from the MoEFCC. After the expiry of the mining lease, the petitioner Industry did not seek 13 for any EC at the time of renewal of their mining lease of the Mahamaya Dulki Mines. However the defense taken up by the petitioner before this Hon'ble High Court by filing Application for taking additional grounds is that as per Circular Dated 12.02.2002 issued by the MoeFCC (Annexure A/9) clarifying applicability of the Notification to renewal cases for mining and expansion of existing projects at Clause 3(d) the EC was not at all required to be sought by the petitioner Industry at the time of renewal of their mining lease in the year 2001 because there was no increase in the originally sanctioned lease area and/or production. The MoEFCC vide Circular dated 02.07.2007 had clarified regarding applicability of EIA Notification dated 14" September, 2006 to mining leases of 5 Hectares for major minerals and mining leases of minor minerals which have been in operation before the said Notification came into force, which is the situation with the present Petitioner Industry. Mr. Mishra submits that admittedly, there is no increase in the originally sanctioned lease area and/or production level by the Petitioner Industry with regard to the subject mine as is also confirmed by the Regional Officer of the Ministry of Environment & Forests (MoEF). It was for this reason that the State Government had renewed mining lease of the Petitioner Industry in the year 2005 w.e.f. 2001 i.e. before the EIA, 2006 came into force. With the coming into force of the EIA Notification, 2006 the aforesaid circular dated 02.07.2007 (Annexure R/5) was issued which clarified that all such projects which have been operating without any EC would obtain EC at the time of their lease renewal even if there is no increase either in terms of lease area or production. However, as per the petitioner Industry since they have already renewed their mining lease under the EIA Notification, 1994 regime and its Clarification Circulars therefore mechanism of obtaining Environmental Clearance under the EIA Notification, 2006 will 14 not be applicable as the mining lease has already been renewed and granted to the Petitioner Industry from 2001. It is humbly submitted that the aforesaid averment of the petitioner Industry is not tenable since as per the operation of Clause 12 of the EIA Notification, 2006 with regard to operation of EIA Notification, 1994 till disposal of pending cases, the operation of all provisions of EIA Notification, 1994 as well as relaxation will cease to operate after 1 year from the date of issuance of the EIA Notification, 2006 for list of projects or activities requiring prior EC. Thus the EC being a mandate under the EIA Notification, 2006 the petitioner industry ought to have applied for a fresh environmental clearance after the expiry of 1 year from the enactment of EIA Notification, 2006 but it did not do so. The MoEFCC had also issued a Letter dated 10.01.2013 (Annexure A/18) to the Secretary, Department of Environment, Government of Chhattisgarh enumerating the fact that "the renewal of mining lease fell due on 04.11.2001 and the Ministry has treated this as a case of violation as the mine continues to work after its lease expired in 2001. The mining project and mining activity without prior environmental clearance is a violation of EP Act. Further the Secretary, Department of Environment, Government of Chhattisgarh was requested to initiate action against the project proponent i.e. the Petitioner Industry as per law and procedure, with intimation to the Ministry and to this office." As a consequence to the aforesaid letter dated 10.01.2013 (Annexure A/18), the respondent/Complainant was directed by the Member Secretary, Chhattisgarh Environment Conservation Board, Raipur (C.G.) to initiate legal proceedings against the petitioner Industry as per the EP Act vide letter dated 27.09.2013 (Annexure A/20). Thus according the complaint was filed before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Dalli Rajhara, District - Balod under Section 15 read with Section 16 of the EP Act 15 which was registered as Criminal Case No. 422/2017. The learned 1st Additional Session Judge, Balod, District - Balod in Criminal Revision No. 59 of 2018 had rightly held that since the Complaint dated 31.01.2017 (Annexure P/2) was made in writing by Regional Officer to the Chhattisgarh Environment Conservation Board, who in turn is a "public servant" under Section 21 of the EP Act. Thus as per proviso to Section 200 of the Cr.P.C. examination of complainant and the witnesses is not necessary. Hence, the learned Additional Session Judge, Balod, District - Balod has followed the provision under Section 200 of the Cr.P.C. and has rightly taken cognizance of the offence and issued summons under Section 204 of the Cr.P.C. Lastly it is humbly submitted that the learned Trial Court has only at this stage has issued summons to the alleged accused and the averments in the complaint is subject to evidence by the parties during the course of trial and which is pending consideration and it cannot be adjudicated before the appellate forum. As such, this petition deserves to be dismissed. 10. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the pleadings and materials available on record. 11. This Court, vide order dated 08.02.2023, had granted an interim protection to the petitioners by staying the effect and operation of the impugned order dated 11.09.2017 taking cognizance by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Dallirajhara. The said interim order has continued till date. 12. A bare perusal of the complaint goes to suggest that not only the petitioner-Company but its authorities have also been arrayed as an accused. The basic allegation against the petitioner(s) is that they continued mining operation without obtaining EC from the competent authority and have violated the provisions of the EP Act. The Notification 16 dated 14.09.2006 is alleged to have been violated. The learned JMFC, Dalli Rajhara, vide its order dated 11.09.2017 has directed issuance of summons against the petitioners for their appearance on 02.12.2017. However, from perusal of the order sheet, it transpires that the petitioners did not appear on the said date and the matter was fixed for 02.01.2018. The said order has been challenged by the petitioners by filing a revision petition before the learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Balod which has been dismissed vide order dated 29.03.2019 on the ground that in view of the proviso to Section 200 of the Cr.P.C. which provides that when a complaint is made in writing, the Magistrate need not examine the complaint and the witnesses if a public servant acting or purporting to act in the discharge of his official duties or a Court has made the complaint. However, according to the petitioners, the petitioners have not violated any of the provisions of the EP Act or any Notification issued by the Central Government. It is the case of the petitioners that the petitioners applied for renewal of mining lease on 02.11.2000. The said lease was renewed in terms of provisions of Rule 24A of the Mineral Conservation Rules for 20 years w.e.f. 04.01.2001 to 03.11.2021 and the Ministry issued a circular regarding applicability of EIA 1994 to renewal cases of mining lease clarifying that EC was not required at the time of renewal of mining lease if there was no increase in the originally sanctioned lease area and/or production. It was further clarified by the Ministry on 28.10.2004 that all mining projects of major minerals of more than 5 Ha. Lease area which have so far not obtained EC under the EIA 1994 shall do at the time of renewal of their lease. It is an admitted position that the petitioners never exceeded 1993-1994 production level i.e. 0.96 MTPA of iron ore from this mining lease. Only when the petitioner planned to enhance the production capacity from existing 0.96 17 MTPA to 1.46 MTPA by opening a new mining block i.e. Dulki covering area of 60 HA, in terms of EIA 2006, the petitioner applied for grant of EC. The petitioners were granted EC by the Ministry for enhancement of production capacity on 26.03.2015 and on 31.01.2017, the complaint was filed under Section 19 read with Section 15 and 16 of the EPAct and Section 43 of the Water Act for violation of EIA 2006, regarding which cognizance was taken by the learned Magistrate. The learned Magistrate ought to have taken into consideration that the EIA Notification dated 27.01.1994 read with paragraph 8 of the Explanation Note regarding the Environment Impact Assessment Notification dated 27.01.1994, clearly granted exemption to the petitioner/SAIL to obtain EC as it had all the relevant clearances of the State Government including NOC from the State Pollution Control Board and the production also started much prior to 27.01.1994. The mining lease was valid upto 03.11.2001 and the petitioner had duly filed application for renewal on 02.11.2000 i.e. one year before the date of its expiry which was renewed for a period of 20 years i.e. 04.11.2001 to 03.11.2021. The circular dated 12.02.2002 clearly stipulated that the EC was not required at the time of renewal of mining lease if there was no increase in the originally sanctioned lease and/or production. The petitioner’s lease was already extended for a period of 20 years w.e.f. 04.11.2001 much prior to issuance of the circulars dated 12.02.2002, 28.10.2004, 07.12.2004 and 24.05.2005 and the renewal of mining lease became due on the date of issuance of the respective three circulars on 03.11.2021 and as such, the said circulars will have no effect on the case of the petitioners. 13. The learned Magistrate ought to have issued the process only after appreciating the aforesaid facts. Summoning of an accused in a criminal case is a serious matter and the order passed by the learned Magistrate 18 summoning the petitioners do not reflect that it had applied its mind to the facts of the case and provisions of law applicable thereto. No prima facie case is made out against the petitioners herein. Further, the learned Magistrate ought to have considered that there has been an inordinate delay in filing the complaint. The MoEFCC had taken a decision vide letter dated 10.01.2013 to initiate action against the petitioners for alleged violation of the provisions of the EP Act, however, the said decision was converted into action only on 31.01.2017 i.e. after a period of more than 4 years for which there is no explanation offered. In the revision petition also, the learned Additional Sessions Judge has affirmed the order passed by the learned Magistrate in a mechanical manner and dismissed the revision petition filed by the petitioners. 14. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in Hasmukhlal D. Vora & Another (supra), it has been observed as under: “ 22. There has been a gap of more than four years between the initial investigation and the filing of the complaint, and even after lapse of substantial amount of time, no evidence has been provided to sustain the claims in the complaint. As held by this Court in Bijoy Singh & Anr. Vs State Of Bihar {(2002) 9 SCC 147}, inordinate delay, if not reasonably explained, can be fatal to the case of the prosecution. The relevant extract from the judgment is extracted below: (SCC p. 153, para 7) “7…..Delay wherever found is required to be explained by the prosecution. If the delay is reasonably explained, no adverse inference can be drawn, but failure to explain the delay would require the Court to minutely examine the prosecution version for ensuring itself as to whether any innocent person has been implicated in the crime or not. Insisting upon the accused to seek an explanation of the delay is not the requirement of law. It is always for the prosecution to explain such a delay and if reasonable, plausible 19 and sufficient explanation is tendered, no adverse inference can be drawn against it.” 23. In the present case, the Respondent has provided no explanation for the extraordinary delay of more than four years between the initial site inspection, the show cause notice, and the complaint. In fact, the absence of such an explanation only prompts the Court to infer some sinister motive behind initiating the criminal proceedings. 24. While inordinate delay in itself may not be ground for quashing of a criminal complaint, in such cases, unexplained inordinate delay of such length must be taken into consideration as a very crucial factor as grounds for quashing a criminal complaint. 25. While this court does not expect a full-blown investigation at the stage of a criminal complaint, however, in such cases where the accused has been subjected to the anxiety of a potential initiation of criminal proceedings for such a length of time, it is only reasonable for the court to expect bare-minimum evidence from the Investigating Authorities.” 15. In Inox Air Products Ltd. (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed as under: “34. In this respect, it will be relevant to refer to the following observations of this Court in the case of Pepsi Foods Ltd. (supra): “28. Summoning of an accused in a criminal case is a serious matter. Criminal law cannot be set into motion as a matter of course. It is not that the complainant has to bring only two witnesses to support his allegations in the complaint to have the criminal law set into motion. The order of the Magistrate summoning the accused must reflect that he has applied his mind to the facts of the case and the law applicable thereto. He has to examine the nature of allegations made in the complaint and the evidence both oral and documentary in support thereof and would that be sufficient for the complainant to 20 succeed in bringing charge home to the accused. It is not that the Magistrate is a silent spectator at the time of recording of preliminary evidence before summoning of the accused. The Magistrate has to carefully scrutinise the evidence brought on record and may even himself put questions to the complainant and his witnesses to elicit answers to find out the truthfulness of the allegations or otherwise and then examine if any offence is prima facie committed by all or any of the accused.” 35. This Court has clearly held that summoning of an accused in a criminal case is a serious matter. It has been held that the order of the Magistrate summoning the accused must reflect that he has applied his mind to the facts of the case and the law applicable thereto. This Court held that the Magistrate is required to examine the nature of allegations made in the complaint and the evidence, both oral and documentary in support thereof and as to whether that would be sufficient for proceeding against the accused. It has been held that the Magistrate is not a silent spectator at the time of recording of preliminary evidence before summoning the accused. 36. The said law would be consistently following by this Court in a catena of judgments including in the cases of Sunil Bharti Mittal v. Central Bureau of Investigation, {(2015) 4 SCC 609 : 2015 INSC 18}, Mehmood Ul Rehman v. Khazir Mohammad Tunda and Others, {(2015) 12 SCC 420} and Krishna Lal Chawla and Others v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another {(2021) 5 SCC 435}. 37. Recently, a Bench of this Court to which one of us (Gavai, J.) was a Member, in the case of Lalankumar Singh (supra), has observed thus: “38. The order of issuance of process is not an empty formality. The Magistrate is required to apply his mind as to whether sufficient ground for proceeding exists in the case or not. The formation of such an opinion is required to be stated in the order itself. The 21 order is liable to be set aside if no reasons are given therein while coming to the conclusion that there is a prima facie case against the accused. No doubt, that the order need not contain detailed reasons. A reference in this respect could be made to the judgment of this Court in the case of Sunil Bharti Mittal v. Central Bureau of Investigation, which reads thus: “51. On the other hand, Section 204 of the Code deals with the issue of process, if in the opinion of the Magistrate taking cognizance of an offence, there is sufficient ground for proceeding. This section relates to commencement of a criminal proceeding. If the Magistrate taking cognizance ofacase (it may be the Magistrate receiving the complaint or to whom it has been transferred under Section 192), upon a consideration of the materials before him (i.e. the complaint, examination of the complainant and his witnesses, if present, or report of inquiry, if any), thinks that there is a prima facie case for proceeding in respect of an offence, he shall issue process against the accused. 52. A wide discretion has been given as to grant or refusal of process and it must be judicially exercised. A person ought not to be dragged into court merely because a complaint has been filed. If a prima facie case has been made out, the Magistrate ought to issue process and it cannot be refused merely because he thinks that it is unlikely to result in a conviction. 53. However, the words “sufficient ground for proceeding”appearing in Section 204 are of immense importance. It is these words which amply suggest that an opinion is to be formed 22 only after due application of mind that there is sufficient basis for proceeding against the said accused and formation of such an opinion is to be stated in the order itself. The order is liable to be set aside if no reason is given therein while coming to the conclusion that there is prima facie case against the accused, though the order need not contain detailed reasons. A fortiori, the order would be bad in law if the reason given turns out to be ex facie incorrect.” 16. In the present case also, we find that there is no application of mind even for the namesake by the learned Magistrate while issuing the process which has been done in a mechanical manner and on this ground alone, the petition deserves to be allowed. Prima facie, this Court does not find any merit in the complaint filed by the respondent before the learned Magistrate and as such, the order dated 23.09.2019 passed by learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Balod, in Criminal Revision No. 59/2018 as well as the registration of the Criminal Complaint No. 422/2017 by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Dalli Rajhara, District Balod, are quashed. 17. Resultantly, this petition stands allowed. Interim order passed on 08.02.2023 is made absolute. SD/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) JUDGE A/.