Chattisgarh High Court
Chhattisgarh Environment … vs M/S Amlidih Quartz Mine on 25 March, 2026
Author: Ramesh Sinha
Bench: Ramesh Sinha
1
2026:CGHC:14286
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
CRMP No. 2577 of 2019
Chhattisgarh Environment Conservation Board Through Regional Officer
Regional Office, 5/32 Bungalow, Bhilai, District Durg Chhattisgarh, District :
Durg, Chhattisgarh
... Petitioner
versus
1 - M/s Amlidih Quartz Mine Mining Lease Area- 5.852 Hectare Quartz Mine
Unit, Part Of Khasra No. 958, P.H.N. 93/32, Village Amlidih, P.O. Amlidih,
Tahsil Dongargarh, District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh, District :
Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh
Digitally
2 - Deepchandra Nahar, Proprietor S/o Chunnilal Nahar, M/s Amlidih Quartz
RAJSHEKHAR signed by
SONI RAJSHEKHAR
SONI
Mine (5.852 Hectare) R/o J.K. Villa, Malviya Nagar, Durg, District Durg
Chhattisgarh Pin 491001, District : Durg, Chhattisgarh
---- Respondents
For Petitioner : Mr. Amrito Das, Advocate.
Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice
Order on Board
25.03.2026
1. Heard Mr. Amrito Das, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner.
2. The petitioner has filed the instant petition under Section 482 of the
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (for short, ‘CrPC‘) with following
prayer:
“i) quash/set aside the order dated 23.08.2019
(Annexure P/3) passed by the learned First Additional
Sessions Judge, Rajnandgaon (C.G.) and/or thereby
allowing the revision.
ii) or any other relief as the Hon’ble Court may deem fit
in the interest of justice, equity and good conscious.”
2
3. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner herein is a statutory body
which has a responsibility to ensure the necessary compliance of the
mandates provided under the various Environment Protection Laws.
The respondents are engaged in mining of Quartz at village Amlidih at
Tahsil Dongargarh and District Rajnandgaon (C.G.). Upon inspection of
the concerned premise, it reveled to the authorities that, the
respondent concerned is running without the necessary authorization
and permission required under section 44 and 47 of the Water
(Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act 1974 and section 37 and 40 of
the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act 1981. It was also found
that, the lease granted to it by the Collector had ended way back on
28.01.2007. Upon this and other discrepancies, the petitioner authority
preferred a complaint against the respondents for necessary action
and punishment prescribed under the Environment Protection Act for
violation of its section 15 and 16. The unregistered complaint was
dismissed for want of prosecution vide order dated 27.02.2018. Against
the said order, an appeal under Section 378 of Cr.P.C was preferred
before the Sessions Court, which was also dismissed vide order dated
11.09.2018. There against a revision was preferred, which was also
dismissed vide order dated 23.08.2019, by the Learned Sessions
Judge, holding the same to be barred by limitation. Hence, this petition.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the order of
the revisional court is baseless, irrational and unwarranted and
deserves to be quashed/set aside. It is further submitted that the
learned revisional court has erred in not appreciating the fact that
prima facie case is made out against the respondent and there was
3
ample grounds satisfying the requirements of Section 5 and Section 14
of the Limitation Act. It is further submitted that the learned Sessions
Court ought to have appreciated that it was under a bonafide legal
misreading that the appeal was preferred. The petitioner most diligently
was back pursuing the Complaint by bringing in a revision. It is further
submitted that the learned Sessions Court failed to appreciate that the
complaint involved a serious issue of environment which affected
public at large and hence consideration while dismissing the revision
had to be made. Hence, the impugned orders is liable to be set aside
5. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the
materials available on record.
6. It transpires from the records that the proceedings have arisen out of a
complaint filed by the petitioner before the learned trial Court under
Section 15 and 16 of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986, read with
Sections 37 and 40 of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution)
Act, 1974, and Sections 44 and 47 of the Air (Prevention and Control of
Pollution) Act, 1981, against the respondents/accused persons. As per
the complaint, Accused No. 1 is a proprietary mining concern engaged
in the business of extraction of quartz from Village Amlidih, Khasra No.
958, Patwari Halka No. 93/32, admeasuring 5.852 hectares, situated in
Tehsil Dongargarh, District Rajnandgaon. Accused No. 2 is the
proprietor of the said mine and is the owner and person in charge of,
and responsible for, the conduct of the business of the said concern,
both directly and indirectly. It is alleged that the accused persons
commenced production activities without obtaining the requisite
environmental clearance from the Board. Upon inspection of the unit
4
on 11.01.2013, it was found that the accused had started production
without obtaining consent to establish from the complainant Board as
mandated under Sections 25 and 26 of the Water (Prevention and
Control of Pollution) Act, 1974, and Sections 21 and 22 of the Air
(Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981. Consequently, a
complaint was filed before the trial Court, and prior to registration,
preliminary evidence of Ajay Chandanaloo, Superintending Engineer,
Chhattisgarh Environment Conservation Board, Kabir Nagar, Raipur,
was recorded. The matter was listed for preliminary evidence on
12.12.2017 and thereafter on 27.02.2018. On the said date, in absence
of the complainant and his counsel, the trial Court dismissed the
complaint for want of prosecution.
7. Being aggrieved by the said order, an appeal bearing Criminal Appeal
No. 18/2018 was preferred by the petitioner before the learned First
Additional Sessions Judge, District – Rajnandgaon (C.G.), and the
same also stood dismissed on 11.09.2018, by upholding the mandate
of Section 378(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, on the ground
that the statutory procedure had not been followed. It was observed
that, in the first instance, the petitioner ought to have approached this
Court by filing an application seeking special leave to appeal, and only
upon grant of such leave by the High Court, could the appeal have
been presented before the learned Additional Sessions Judge.
Aggrieved by the said judgment and order dated 11.09.2018, the
petitioner preferred a revision petition, being Criminal Revision No.
29/2019, before the learned First Additional Sessions Judge,
Rajnandgaon (C.G.). However, by order dated 23.08.2019, the said
5
revision also came to be dismissed on the ground of limitation, as the
same was found to be barred by a delay of 01 year and 02 months, the
revision having been filed beyond the statutory period of 90 days
prescribed from the date of dismissal of the said criminal appeal, and
against the said order, the petitioner has come up before this Court.
8. Considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the
petitioner, and from the perusal of the documents annexed with the
instant petition, this Court is of the opinion that no case is made out in
the present case on merits, and it is clear that the unregistered
complaint filed by the petitioner against the respondents was dismissed
for want of prosecution, thereafter, against the order dismissing the
complaint, the petitioner preferred a Criminal Appeal No. 18/2018
which also stood dismissed as per the proviso contained under Section
378(4) of the CrPC, and thirdly, against the order dismissing the said
appeal, the petitioner preferred a Criminal Revision No. 29/2019 which
was filed after an inordinate delay of 01 year and 02 months.
Resultantly, the revision was also dismissed on the ground of delay
and barred by limitation, and there is no any infirmity or jurisdictional
error warranting interference of this Court.
9. Accordingly, the instant CRMP being devoid of merits, liable to be and
is hereby dismissed.
10. A copy of this order be sent to the concerned trial Court for necessary
compliance and follow up action, if any.
Sd/-
(Ramesh Sinha)
Chief Justice
Rajshekhar
