IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                   A.B.A. No. 1656 of 2015
     1. Tarun Kumar Ghosh
     2. Ranjit Kumar Roy                           ....    Petitioners
                            Versus
     1. The State of Jharkhand
     2. Mr. S. S. Hoda, Regional Officer, Jharkhand Pollution
        Control Board, Dumka
                                                   ...        Opposite Parties
                                       ---
     CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY
                                ---
     For the Petitioners : Mr. Rajeeva Sharma, Sr. Advocate
     For the State       : Mr. Arun Kr. Pandey, APP
     For O.P. No. 2             : Mr. Rahul Saboo, Advocate
                                ---
Order No. 09                                 Dated 21st September , 2015

             Heard Mr. Rajeeva Sharma, learned senior counsel, appearing for the
petitioner, Mr. Arun Kr. Pandey, learned counsel for the State and Mr. Rahul Saboo,
learned counsel for the opposite party No. 2.
             Petitioners have prayed for grant of anticipatory bail, as they are
apprehending their arrest in connection with O.C.R. Case No. 274 of 2014
registered for the offences punishable u/s 15 of the Environment Protection Act, 44
of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1947 and Section 37 of the
Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act.
             It has been submitted by the learned senior counsel for the petitioners
that initially F.I.R. was instituted and after investigation final form was submitted, but
on protest-cum-complaint petition, cognizance has been taken. It has been
submitted that the petitioner No. 1 is the Ex General Manager, whereas petitioner
No. 2 is the Manager of PANEM Coal Company Ltd. It is further submitted that the
production was within the prescribed limit fixed by the Jharkhand State Pollution
Control Board (JSPCB) and no excess production was being made by the coal
company. It has been submitted that in terms of the no objection certificate issued
by the JSPCB dated 15.3.2003, the ultimate coal production can be up to 23
thousand M.T. per day which if calculated annually comes to 83 lakhs 95 thousands
M.T. It has also been submitted by the learned senior counsel that in terms of the
decision of the Ministry of Environment and Forest, Govt. of India dated 4.1.2005,
the production capacity of Panem Coal Company was reduced to 70 Lakhs M.T. per
year after obtaining the consent from the State Pollution Control Board. Learned
senior counsel further adds that the JSPCB in terms of the letter issued by the
Ministry of Environment, Govt. of India had subsequently issued a communication
dated 12.3.2012 by which the production in no objection certificate was revised
from 23 thousand M.T. per day to 70 Lakhs M.T. per year. It has also been
submitted that the period of dispute is from 1.4.2011 to 31.3.2012 and there was no
embargo upon the Panem Coal Company during the said period sans before
12.3.2012

to maintain the production capacity for not more than 70 Lakhs M.T.

annually. It is further submitted that during the period in dispute the production capacity of Panel Coal Company was within the limits as prescribed by the no objection certificate dated 15.3.2003 issued by the JSPCB and hence no offence can be alleged to have been committed by the petitioners. Learned senior counsel has also referred to the report dated 7.5.2013 of the JSPCB by which on analysis the level of pollution was found within the prescribed limit.

Mr. A. K. Pandey, learned counsel for the State has opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioners and has submitted that the company was producing coal over and above the limit prescribed by the Pollution Control Board under its no objection certificate.

Mr. Rahul Saboo, learned counsel for the opposite party No. 2 has also opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioners and referring to the letter of the Ministry of Environment, Govt. of India dated 4.1.2005 submitted that it was well within the knowledge of the company with respect to the production of coal within 70 Lakhs M.T. per year and at this stage they cannot take recourse to the no objection certificate granted by the Pollution Control Board, which subsequent to the issuance of the directives dated 4.1.2005 was revised and the Board has reduced the production capacity of the company from 23 thousand M.T. per day to 70 Lakhs M.T. annually.

From the discussions made above it appears that during the period in which it is alleged that the Panem Coal Company had violated the norms of the Central Govt. and has made excess production than what was permitted in view of the no objection certificate dated 15.3.2003 issued by the Pollution Control Board and subsequent letter dated 7.3.2012 issued on the direction of Ministry of Environment, Govt. of India dated 4.1.2005, the petitioners cannot be held responsible for excess production for the period during which the allegations have been levelled as the same was within the specifications as mentioned by the Pollution Control Board in its earlier no objection certificate dated 15.3.2003.

Regard being had to the aforesaid fact, I am inclined to allow this application. Accordingly, the petitioners, named above, are directed to surrender in the court below within three weeks from today and on such surrender, they shall be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Ten Thousand) each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Judicial Magistrate, Pakur in connection with O.C.R. Case No. 274 of 2014, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY, J.) MK