@ 26% of total quantity supplied on 20.02.1991, contained in Annexures-10 and 10/1. In this background, he submits that the entire case is maliciously filed against the petitioner. He also submits that the allegation under Section 4/21 of the MMDR Act is not maintainable on the ground that directly FIR has been registered bypassing the mandatory provision of Section 22 of the MMDR Act, which says that in case of offences under the MMDR Act, a complaint in writing has to be filed by an authorized person either by the Central Government or State Government. He further submits that the petitioner is not engaged in mining, however, the case has been lodged under the said rules and regulations of Jharkhand Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2004. He submits that so far as the allegation under Rule 9/13 of the Jharkhand Mineral (Prevention of Illegal Mining Transportation and Storage) Rule is concerned, the petitioner regularly submits details of procured, processes and transported coal, contained in Annexure-8 Series. He submits that in view of Consent to Operate, no case under the Water Act and Air Act is made out. According to him, Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code is also not made out as the petitioner was having a valid document for operation of the said factory. He submits that on the same day, the factory premises of the petitioner has been sealed, which is against the mandate of law and the police is not authorized to do so. To buttress this arguments, he relied upon the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Nevada Properties Private Limited through its Directors v. State of Maharashtra and another; [(2019) 20 SCC 119] . He refers paragraphs 2, 9, 11, 21, 25, 29, 31, 32, 33, 41 and 49 of the said judgment, which are quoted hereinbelow:
