IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                      A.B.A. No. 163 of 2016
                                    ----
          Ravindra Choudhary, S/o Dhaneshwar Choudhary, Resident of Village-
          Tupudana, P.O. P.S. Hatia, District-Ranchi, presently resident of
          village-Tikul, P.O. & P.S. Palkot, District-Gumla.
                                                          .....Petitioner
                                       Versus
          The State of Jharkhand.                         ...Opposite Party
                                   --------
           Coram: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY
                                   --------
           For the Petitioner               : Mr. Gaurav, Advocate
           For the State                    : APP
           For Pollution Control Board : Mrs. Richa Sanchita, Advocate.
                                   --------
07/11-04-2016

Heard the parties.

The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection with Khunti P.S. Case No. 137 of 2015, corresponding to G.R. Case No. 393 of 2015, registered for the offence punishable under Sections 379, 414/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 21 of Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, Under Section 54 of Jharkhand Minor Minerals Concessions Rules, 2004 & Under Section 4(1) of Mines & Minerals ( Development & Regulation) Act, 1957.

It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is the proprietor of Dandoul Stone Mine & Crusher and he was running the crusher on the basis of a valid mining lease executed on 8.1.2015, which was valid for a period of ten years. It has further been submitted that after obtaining the mining lease, necessary application was made before the Jharkhand State Pollution Control Board for obtaining No Objection Certificate. It has also been submitted that the petitioner had obtained the Consent to Establish by the Jharkhand State Pollution Control Board, Ranchi on 10.08.2015 and on the basis of inspection report it was subsequently granted the Consent to Operate on 28.08.2015. Learned counsel submits that in view of Section 29 of the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981, the petitioner had already made an application before the Pollution Control Board and in view of proviso to Sub Section (2) of Section 29, the petitioner would be deemed to have permission to operate Crusher Machine with the consent of the Board. Learned counsel therefore submits that since after making an application for giving consent to operate, the petitioner had started to -2- operate his crusher plant and therefore there being no offence made out, the petitioner deserves anticipatory bail. Learned counsel has referred to the order passed in A.B.A. No. 3545 of 2015, in which the owner of the seized vehicle has been granted anticipatory bail.

Mrs. Richa Sanchita, learned counsel appearing for Jharkhand State Pollution Control Board, at the request of the Court, has put in appearance and has submitted that Section 19 of the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 deals with the power to declare air pollution control areas. It has been submitted that in the year 1988, by a gazette notification, the entire State was declared an air pollution control area and therefore in terms of Section 21 of the Act, deemed operation of an industrial plant is applicable only when any person is operating an industrial plant immediately before an air pollution control area is declared as such. It has further been submitted that in view of Sections 19 and 20 of the Act, the petitioner was precluded from starting his production before the necessary consent to operate issued by the Pollution Control Board after due inquiry.

It is not in dispute that the petitioner had obtained a lease valid for a period of 10 years and had also made an application before the Jharkhand State Pollution Control Board for giving him permission to operate the plant. Section 21, which has much been harped upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner is with respect to restrictions on use of certain industrial plants wherein it has been envisaged that no person shall without the previous consent of the State Board, establish or operate any industrial plant in an air pollution control area. Admittedly, the consent to operate was given by the Pollution Control Board on 28.08.2015 after the institution of the FIR wherein it was alleged that Crusher Machine was already operating when it was alleged that stone chips were loaded in the truck from the crusher plant of the petitioner. The FIR further discloses that Crusher Machine was running without taking consent and the same in absence of consent or no objection certificate from Pollution Control Board was against Section 21 of the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 could not have operated. Moreover, it has been alleged that only three challans for three trucks were in existence whereas the petitioner had sold eight trucks materials which also substantiates the allegation with respect to -3- section 379 and 414 of IPC.

In the circumstances, enumerated above, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Hence his prayer for anticipatory bail is, accordingly, rejected.

( Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J) Rakesh/