Allowed

Rrb Energy Limited and Anr. v. State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Bombay HC19 Nov 2012WP/333/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners challenged prosecution under the Mines and Minerals Act for alleged illegal bauxite mining. The Court quashed the proceedings, holding evidence showed excavation of 'Murum' (minor mineral), not bauxite, rendering the offence under the Act untenable.

What did the court decide?

Prosecution initiated against the Company and its Directors was quashed and set aside.

Rrb Energy Limited and Anr. Vs State of Maharashtra and Anr. — Property and Title | Bombay HC (2012)

¶1

vrd 1 WP333/12

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶3

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.333 OF 2012

¶5

RRB Energy Ltd. ...Petitioners v/s

¶6

State of Maharashtra and anr.

¶7

...Respondents

¶8

Mr A.P. Mundargi, Senior Counsel i/b M/s Sanjay Udeshi and Co. for Petitioners. Mr A.R. Patil, APP for State.

¶9

CORAM : K.U. CHANDIWAL J.

¶10

DATED : 19TH NOVEMBER 2012.

¶11

P.C. :-

¶12

Heard the learned Senior Counsel for petitioners and the learned APP for State. The Officer Mr S.S. Deshpande from District Mining Office present.

¶13

2. The petitioners question legality of

¶14

prosecution initiated by the State through District Mining Office, Satara vide criminal complaint No.SCC 699/03 for offence punishable under section 21 r/w

¶15

section 4 of the Mines and Minerals (Development and

¶16

vrd 2 WP333/12

¶17

Regulation) Act 1957.

¶18

The complainant has averred that a site was

¶19

allotted to the petitioners and it was noticed that

¶20

five different companies including the petitioners

¶21

have excavated 6,82,398.30 tonnes of bauxite

¶22

illegally without permission and in contravention of

¶23

above referred provisions. From the said

¶24

excavation, it is alleged that the petitioners have illegally excavated 13,575.94 tonnes of bauxite during the period from 1999 to 2002 in the land situated on the plateau of East Koyana at Chalakewadi, Wankusawade, Savarghar, Kushi, Jambhe, Bharsakhal, Gawadewadi, Chikhali, Maralwadi,

¶25

Mendoshi, Mharwad, Dhomoshi, Ghot, Keral, Nivakane etc. within the district of Satara.

¶26

Reading the complaint as a whole and

¶27

annexures, it hardly indicates that there was an

¶28

element of mineral called Bauxite in the site

¶29

allotted to the petitioners. There was no

¶30

inspection report confirming this aspect though the

¶31

vrd 3 WP333/12

¶32

Committee was formed by the Collector, Satara and the responsible Officers from the District Mining Department, Deputy Director of Geology, Tahasildar

¶33

were also members of such Committee. What was

¶34

excavated was Murum, a minor mineral, excavation of which does not attract provisions of section 4 of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act 1957 or the punishment provided under section 21 thereof.

¶35

This aspect is quite evident from an order recorded by the learned Collector, Satara in an appeal preferred by the petitioners. The glaring aspect is, the authorities in the Department have noticed unauthorised excavation of 1219 brass of Murum and for the said excavation, penalty was imposed. The Collector or the authorities thus were consciously aware, there could not be so called illegal excavation of 13,575.94 tonnes either of Bauxite or of the Murum.

¶36

vrd 4 WP333/12

¶37

learned Collector, Satara in appeal, as stated

¶38

above, are directed to pay royalty at the rate of Rs.28/- per brass and penalty of Rs.150/- per brass

¶39

for unauthorised excavation. Even if such order of

¶40

the appellate Authority, subsequent to the

¶41

complaint, is passed, however, the fact remains that it was not the excavation of Bauxite as the

¶42

complainants felt. Even if in the site there was traces of bauxite, however there was no primary evidence to illustrate that the petitioners at any time removed / excavated Bauxite in the site.

¶43

In the set of above facts, the prosecution

¶44

initiated against the Company, its Directors

¶45

warrants interference. It is accordingly quashed and set aside. Writ petition is allowed.

Rrb Energy Limited and Anr. v. State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rrb Energy Limited and Anr. v. State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Manchak Tukaram Tidole Vs the State of Maharashtra

Mayur Batra and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Dinkar Vithal Patil and Ors. Vs Hukumsingh Bhawarsingh Rajpurohit and Ors.

Rrb Energy Limited and Anr. Vs State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Vasant Ravji Shah Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Ammar M. Tambawala and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.