1 2026:CGHC:5015 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 2102 of 2022 1. Steel Authority Of India Limited (M/s Bhilai Steel Plant), Dalli Forest Range Iron Ore Mines, Mining Lease Of Bhilai Steel Plant, Ispat Bhawan, Bhilai, District Durg Chhattisgarh Through Its Power Of Holder Attorney Shri Hemant Doshi (Wrongly Mentioned As M/s Dalli Forest Range Iron Ore Mines, Mining Lease Of Bhilai Steel Plant In The Complaint And Impugned Order Of The Trial Court ) 2. Shri Manas Biswas Executive Director M/s Bhilai Steel Plant, (Retired), 5th Floor, Ispat Bhawan, Bhilai, District Durg Chhattisgarh 3. Shri S.K. Saha Executive Director (Retired), Through M/s Bhilai Steel Plant, 5th Floor, Ispat Bhawan, Bhilai, District Durg Chhattisgarh 4. Shri A.K.Nath General Manager Mines (Retired), Through General Manager (Mines), Rajhara Administrative Building, Dallirajhara, District Balod Chhattisgarh 5. Shri Surendra Singh Chief General Manager (Safety And F.S.), Retired, Quarter No. 4, Street No. 10, Sector 9, Bhilai, District Durg Chhattisgarh 6. Shri Tapan Sutradhar Chief General Manager Mines (Ioc), Rajhara Administration Building, Dallirajhara, District Balod Chhattisgarh 7. Shri Samir Swarup Chief General Manager (P And L), Raw Material Division, Rourkela Ispat Plant, Rourkela (Odissa) 8. Shri M.K.Mishra General Manager, Incharge (Sms-1), Quarter No. 9a, Street 40, Sector 5, Bhilai, District Durg Chhattisgarh 9. Shri Kumar Shivesh Assistant General Manager (Mines), Rajhara Administrative Building, Dallirajhara, District Balod Chhattisgarh 10.Shri Birender Kumar Deputy General Manager (Mines), Dalli Administrative Building, Dallirajhara, District Balod Chhattisgarh 2 ... Petitioner(s) versus Regional OfÏcer, Regional OfÏce Chhattisgarh Environment Conservation Board 5/32 Bunglow, Bhilai District Durg Chhattisgarh --- Respondent For Petitioner : Ms. Pinki Anand, learned Sr. Advocate and Mr. Rupesh Kumar, learned Sr. Advocate along with Mr. Ashish Mittal, Advocate. For-Respondent : Mr. Abhijeet Mishra, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Arvind Kumar Verma, Judge Order on Board 29/01/2026 1. With the consent of the parties, the matter is heard finally. 2. The present CRMP has been filed for the following relief(s):- (i) That this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash and set aside the impugned Order dated 11.02.2020 passed by the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Dalli Rajhara, District Balod(Chhattisgarh) in the Complaint Case No. 91 of 2020, in the interest of justice; (ii) That this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash entire subsequent proceedings against the Petitioners in Complaint Case No. 91 of 2020 pending before Court of learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Dalli Rajhara, District Balod (Chhattisgarh) filed by Respondent, in the interest of justice; (iii) Pass such further and other orders and directions as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 3 3. At the outset Ms. Pinki Anand, learned Senior counsel for the petitioners fairly submits the matter in issue is covered by the common orders dated 17.11.2015 passed by this Court in CRMP No. 1000/2022 (STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA LIMITED versus REGIONAL OFFICER) and order delivered dated 09.05.2025 passed by this Court in CRMP No. 2593/2019 (STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA LIMITED (BHILAI STEEL PLANT) versus THE REGIONAL OFFICER). This Bench has allowed observing as follows:- 13. Therefore, as per inspection and report of Dr. P.S. Sakhare, Scientist ‘D’, it is crystal clear that the Rajhara mechanised iron ore mine of M/s SAIL, operating under the Pandri-Dalli and Rajhara Pahar lease, has been in continuous operation since June 1958. The mining lease area of 220.42 hectares was renewed by the Government of Chhattisgarh for the period from 28.04.2003 to 27.04.2023. Forest Clearance for 100.76 hectares was obtained on 06.04.2004 and remained coterminous with the mining lease. Necessary Air and Water Consents have been regularly obtained since 01.04.1993. The mine has been mechanised since inception,following the same process of drilling, blasting, excavation by excavators, and transportation of ore to the crushing plant by dumpers. The highest iron ore 4 production achieved was 2.795 MTPA in 1993–94, and production has never exceeded been no modernization or expansion of the mine since 1958. M/s SAIL has regularly obtained renewal of Consent to Operate (CTO) from the Chhattisgarh Environment Conservation Board (CECB). 14. 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 summoning the petitioners do not relect 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. 17. 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 ind any merit in the complaint filed by the respondent before the learned 5 Magistrate and as such, the registration of the Complaint Case No. 92 of 2020 by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Dalli Rajhara, District Balod, is hereby quashed. 18. Resultantly, this petition stands allowed. Interim order passed on 18.07.2022 is made absolute. 4. Learned Sr. counsel for petitioners further submitted that since the facts and issue involved in the present case is identical to that of CRMP No. 1000/2022 and CRMP No. 2593/2019, this petition may also be allowed in the same terms. 5. Mr. Abhijeet Mishra, learned counsel for respondent/s does not oppose the submission made by the learned Sr. Counsel for the petitioners. 6. Having considered the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and having gone through the materials on record, it is evident that the facts and issue involved in this crmp is identical to CRMP No. 1000/2022 and CRMP No. 2593/2019, this Court deems it appropriate not to take a view other than what has been taken in CRMP No. 1000/2022 and CRMP No. 2593/2019. 7. Accordingly, the present CRMP is allowed in terms of the orders dated 17.11.2015 passed by this Court in CRMP No. 1000/2022 (STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA LIMITED versus REGIONAL OFFICER) 6 and order dated 09.05.2025 passed by this Court in CRMP No. 2593/2019 (STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA LIMITED (BHILAI STEEL PLANT) versus THE REGIONAL OFFICER) . 8. Consequently, the impugned order dated 11.02.2020 passed by the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Dalli Rajhara, District Balod (Chhattisgarh) in Complaint Case No. 91 of 2020, as well as the entire Complaint Case No. 91 of 2020 and all proceedings arising therefrom, stand quashed. Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) JUDGE Jyoti