JUDGMENT : (1) By way of the present writ application, the applicant seeks quashing of F.I.R. being C.R. No.I32 of 2015 registered with Kalyanpur Police Station, District Devbhoomi Dwarka for the offences punishable under sections 4(1), 4(1)(a) of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 ('the MMDR Act' for short). The writ applicant has also filed the captioned writ application for allowing her to sell and/or export approximately 60,000 Metric Ton (MT) of bauxite which is mined prior to filing of the impugned FIR and after he addressed a communication dated 05.01.2015 to the concerned authority. (2) The facts of the case as mentioned in the memo of the application are as under: (2.1) Applicant has been carrying on mining of bauxite on her mines at Village Virpur, Taluka Kalyanpur, District Devbhoomi Dwarka, for which a mining lease dated 15.05.1996 has been executed. The applicant was, for the first time, communicated by a letter dated 20.07.2013 that her mines are within 1 km. of a Marine Sanctuary and was accordingly called upon to stop the mining activity and, therefore, the applicant stopped the mining activity. The applicant, thereafter, approached the Court of Forest Settlement Officer, Junagadh who, by a detailed order dated 07.12.2014, held that the mines of the applicant (and few other mines) are not within 1 km. of the Marine Sanctuary. The applicant thereafter, by a letter dated 05.01.2015, communicated the same to Collector, Khambhaliya and to Geologist, Khambhaliya and informed them that the applicant would be commencing the mining activities. The impugned F.I.R. is in respect of the mining done thereafter (i.e. in the months of January February, 2015). (2.2) A notification dated 09.07.1976 came to be published under sections 4 and 7 of the Indian Forests Act, 1927 (the Forest Act) in its application to the State Government, whereby, it was decided to constitute the lands mentioned therein as reserved forest, specifying the situation and the limits of such land and also appointing the Forest Settlement Officer to inquire into and determine the existence, nature and extent of any rights alleged to exist in favour of any persons in/or over any land comprised within such limits, etc. The lands proposed to be constituted as reserved forest were specified in the schedule to the said notification. The lands proposed to be constituted as reserved forest were specified in the schedule to the said notification. (2.3) A notification dated 12.08.1980 came to be published under section 18(1) of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 (the Wild Life Act) by the Government of Gujarat, Agricultural, Forest and Cooperative Department declaring its intention to constitute the areas mentioned therein as a sanctuary because it considered that such area is of adequate ecological, faunal, floral, geomorphological, natural or zoological significance for the purpose of protecting propagating or developing wild life or its environment. The schedule to the said notification specified the situation and limits of such area viz. forest areas in the Gulf of Kachchh falling in Jamnagar Forest Division, Jamnagar District, Jamnagar as a Marine Reserve (Sanctuary). (2.4) Another notification dated 20.07.1982 came to be published under section 18(1) of the Wild Life Act by the Government of Gujarat, Agriculture and Forest Department declaring the forest areas in the Gulf of Kachhchh falling in Jamnagar Forest Division, Jamnagar District as a Marine Sanctuary, in additional to the areas already declared as Marine Sanctuary under the aforesaid notification dated 12.08.1980. (2.5) Another notification dated 20.07.1982 came to be published under section 35(1) of the Wild Life Act by the Government of Gujarat, Agricultural and Forest Department declaring its intention to constitute the areas mentioned therein into a Marine National Park. (2.6) A mining order dated 02.12.1995 came to be issued under section 10 of the MMDR Act sanctioning the grant to the applicant of a mining lease for bauxite in respect of the area being Revenue Survey No.117 of Village Virpur, Taluka Kalyanpur, District Jamnagar for a period of 20 years. Thereafter, a mining lease dated 15.05.1996 came to be executed between the State and the applicant in respect of the aforesaid land, for a period of 20 years and thereafter, the applicant has been carrying on mining of bauxite since the execution of the aforesaid mining lease. (2.7) In or around 200910, the Commissioner, Geology and Mining Department deputed Gujarat Mineral Research and Development Society (GMRDS) for the alleged purpose of sustaining development in mineral section and for implementing the alleged object in mineral policy. Various firms of Chartered Accountants were appointed for the said purpose of carrying out System Audit Reports. (2.7) In or around 200910, the Commissioner, Geology and Mining Department deputed Gujarat Mineral Research and Development Society (GMRDS) for the alleged purpose of sustaining development in mineral section and for implementing the alleged object in mineral policy. Various firms of Chartered Accountants were appointed for the said purpose of carrying out System Audit Reports. Such reports were prepared for the period 01.04.2000 to 31.03.2008 and also for 01.04.2008 to 31.03.2009 and upto 31.03.2010 in respect of the mines of the applicant. The said reports, however, were never supplied to the applicant. For the said purpose, detailed correspondence came to be exchanged; notices came to be issued to the applicant based on such reports. (2.8) The applicant, therefore, has filed Special Civil Suit No.2948 of 2013 before this court and challenged very appointment of GMRDS, the System Audit Reports, notices issued as a consequence of the said reports. etc., in the said writ petition the applicant has, by interim relief prayed for a direction to the Geologist to issue to the applicant Royalty Passbooks for 1,25,000 MT of bauxite lying at the mines of the applicant and for the bauxite that may be mined thereafter. Initially, by an interim relief dated 14.03.2013 this court issued notice and granted adinterim relief as prayed for. Thereafter, the applicant addressed a letter dated 16.03.2013 to the Geologist to issue to the applicant the Royalty Passbooks. The State, through the Officer on Special Duty (OSD) issued an order dated 19.03.2013 to the applicant granting permission to the applicant to export 1,06,293.590 MT of non-plant grade bauxite. Thereafter, this court by further order dated 20.03.2013 issued rule in Special Civil Application No.2948 of 2013 and continued adinterim relief granted earlier i.e. on 14.03.2013 till further orders and also ordered that the said Special Civil Application No.2948 of 2013 to be heard with Special Civil Application Nos.14997/2012, 2974/2012 and 4675/2012, which interim relief is in force as on date. (2.9) The applicant received a letter dated 20.07.2013 under the signature of Collector, Devbhoomi Dwarka stating that the mines of the applicant are within 1 km. of the Marine Sanctuary and the applicant was thereby called upon to immediately stop the mining activity. (2.9) The applicant received a letter dated 20.07.2013 under the signature of Collector, Devbhoomi Dwarka stating that the mines of the applicant are within 1 km. of the Marine Sanctuary and the applicant was thereby called upon to immediately stop the mining activity. In the said letter, there is a reference of an order dated 04.08.2006 of the Apex Court passed in Writ Petition No.202 of 1995, order dated 24.04.2013 passed in PIL No.114 of this court and some communications of the Deputy Conservator of Forest etc. At that point of time, there was a stock of 2,71,812.855 MT of the mined bauxite at the mines of the applicant. (2.10) After receipt of the aforesaid letter dated 20.07.2013, though the applicant stopped the mining activity, the applicant deposited from time to time the royalty of the aggregate amount of Rs.35,29,904/to enable the applicant to remove/sell the stock of 2,71,812.855 MT of the mined bauxite. The applicant had been removing/selling the stock of the mined bauxite on eroyalty being paid and accepted. (2.11) In or around February-March 2014, the applicant tried to obtain/get issued the e-royalty passes from the website of the Geology and Mining, Gujarat, however, the same could not be issued. Hence, the removal sale/transport of the stock of the mined bauxite had completely stopped since March, 2014. After exchanging some correspondence with the appropriate authority, the applicant filed Civil Application No.6289 of 2014 in her pending Special Civil Application No.2948 of 2013, wherein this court vide order dated 03.07.2014 directed that the concerned authority shall verify within a period of seven days whether bauxite of 2,44,616.386 MT was mined before 20.07.2013 and if the said quantity of bauxite is found mined before 20.07.2013, the concerned authority shall issue and continue to issue e-Royalty passes to the applicant against the amount which may be deposited towards Royalty in respect of the said quantity of the mined bauxite lying at the mines of the applicant. The applicant has sold part of the aforesaid stock of the mined bauxite to Thankys Export Private Limited (TEPL) for export. (2.12) The applicant had stopped the mining ever since the receipt of the aforesaid letter/communication dated 20.07.2013. In or around October/November, 2014, the applicant approached the Forest Settlement Officer for ascertaining whether the mines of the applicant were in fact within 1 km. periphery of the Marine National Park/Sanctuary. (2.12) The applicant had stopped the mining ever since the receipt of the aforesaid letter/communication dated 20.07.2013. In or around October/November, 2014, the applicant approached the Forest Settlement Officer for ascertaining whether the mines of the applicant were in fact within 1 km. periphery of the Marine National Park/Sanctuary. Few other leaseholders also appeared to have approached the Forest Settlement Officer in respect of their mines. The Forest Settlement Officer by a detailed order dated 07.12.2004 held that the mines of the applicant are not within 1 km. of the Marine Park/Sanctuary. The Forest Settlement Officer, by communication dated 07.12.2014 forwarded the copy of the said order to the Deputy Conservator of Forest, Marine National Park, Jamnagar and also to the applicant. As per the said communication, any person aggrieved thereof is required to file an appeal before the appropriate authority within three months, which order is in force today. (2.13) Based upon the said order dated 07.12.2014, the applicant addressed a letter dated 05.01.2015 to Collector, Khambhaliya and Geologist, Khambhaliya, enclosing therewith the letter and order dated 07.12.2014 of the Forest Settlement Officer and also made a reference therein to the letter dated 20.07.2013 and stated that the said communication/letter dated 20.07.2013 will now not be applicable to the applicant and the applicant shall accordingly be commencing her mining activities. (2.14) As aforesaid, the applicant had sold to the TEPL (from August 2013 to August 2014) part of the stock of the mined bauxite, which was lying with the applicant as on 20.07.2013. The said TEPL applied for NOC. From the concerned Geologist for the purpose of presenting the same before the concerned Port Officer so as to obtain permission for berthing the vessel, in which the said bauxite was to be exported. The NOC was refused to TEPL by letter dated 28.01.2015 of the said concerned Geologist. TEPL, therefore, filed Special Civil Application No.2193 of 2015 before this court on 02.02.2015, wherein by order dated 05.02.2015 this court issued notice to the respondents therein, made it returnable on 19.02.2015 and directed specifically the Commissioner to file affidavit-in-reply keeping in view the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court rendered in Letters Patent Appeal No.681 of 2011 dated 13.12.2011. However, the Commissioner did not file any reply on 19.02.2015 or thereafter. However, the Commissioner did not file any reply on 19.02.2015 or thereafter. (2.15) In the aforesaid background, the Fellow Geologist in the Office of the Geologist at Khambhaliya, Devbhoomi Dwarka lodged on 23.03.2015 the impugned F.I.R. against the applicant alleging offences under sections 4(1) and (4)(1)(a) of the MMDR Act on the basis that the applicant has mined approximately 60,000 MT of bauxite within 1 km. of Marine National Park/Sanctuary, which was in breach of the orders of the Apex Court as well as this court. (2.16) On the very next day of registration of the impugned F.I.R. i.e. 24.03.2015, the Geologist, working in the office of the Commissioner, filed affidavitinreply dated 24.03.2015 in TEPL's Special Civil Application No.2193 of 2015. The bauxite, which is purchased by the TEPL and is subject matter of the TEPL's writ petition, is the bauxite which the TEPL had purchased out of the stock of the mined bauxite which the applicant was having as on 20.07.2013. The applicant around 25/26.03.2015 learnt from the newspaper reports about registration of the impugned F.I.R. (3) Learned advocate Mr. A.S. Vakil for the applicant submitted that in the impugned F.I.R. there are reference of various orders/letters, however, the same are not supplied to the applicant and as per the orders/letters all mining lease within 1 km. periphery of the reserved forests, Marine Reserve or Marine Sanctuary are required to be closed with immediate effect. He has submitted that as per the impugned F.I.R., the mining lease of the applicant is within 1 km. periphery of Marine Sanctuary and that the applicant was vide letter dated 20.07.2013 informed/ordered to close down the mining activity. However, as per the impugned F.I.R., on examination of the online F-3 Return, the applicant in January 2015, had mined 32,000 MT and in February 2015 had mined 28,000 MT of bauxite. Accordingly, as per the impugned F.I.R., the applicant has committed breach of the aforesaid orders and done illegal mining within 1 km. periphery of eco-sensitive zone/Marine National Park and thereby committed breach of Sections 4(1) and 4(1) (a) of the MMDR Act. (3.1) Learned advocate for the applicant submitted that the informant of the impugned F.I.R. has completely ignored and overlooked the order dated 07.12.2014 and the communication dated 07.12.2014 of the Forest Settlement Officer, by which it has been held that the mines of the applicant are not within 1 km. (3.1) Learned advocate for the applicant submitted that the informant of the impugned F.I.R. has completely ignored and overlooked the order dated 07.12.2014 and the communication dated 07.12.2014 of the Forest Settlement Officer, by which it has been held that the mines of the applicant are not within 1 km. periphery of any Marine National Park/Sanctuary. He has submitted that the order dated 07.12.2014 has been communicated to Collector, Jamkhambhaliya or Geologist, Jamkhambhaliya has never disputed the same, much less filed any appeal against the same. He has submitted that the applicant, by the said letter dated 05.01.2015, also conveyed that she would be commencing the mining activities and accordingly, commenced the mining activity. Under the aforesaid circumstances, the applicant cannot be said to have carried out any mining activity within 1 km. periphery of Marine National Park/Sanctuary and thereby also cannot be said to have committed breach of any of the orders referred to in the impugned F.I.R. and, therefore, it was submitted that the impugned F.I.R. is liable to be quashed as having been filed in breach and ignorance of the letter and order dated 07.12.2014 of the Forest Settlement Officer and also the letter dated 05.01.2015 of the applicant. It was submitted that for the aforesaid reasons, the applicant also cannot be said to have committed breach of Sections 4(1) and 4(1)(a) of the MMDR Act. (3.2) Learned advocate for the applicant further submitted that under section 22 of the MMDR Act, no court shall take cognizance of any offence punishable under this Act, or any rules made thereunder, except upon a complaint in writing made by a person authorized in this behalf by the Central Government or the State Government. (3.3) Learned advocate for the applicant has submitted that the impugned F.I.R. has been lodged by Fellow Geologist, Shri Parth Patel, who is stated to be discharging his duties on “contract basis” and, therefore, the impugned F.I.R. has not been lodged by the officer/person authorized in this behalf by the Central/State Government and, therefore, the same is liable to be quashed. (3.4) Learned advocate for the applicant also submitted that the impugned F.I.R. is filed in mala fide exercise of powers and is a clear abuse of powers. (3.4) Learned advocate for the applicant also submitted that the impugned F.I.R. is filed in mala fide exercise of powers and is a clear abuse of powers. It was submitted that Collector, Jamkhambhaliya and Geologist, Jamkhambhaliya were informed by the applicant by letter dated 05.01.2015 about the letter and order dated 07.12.2014 of the Forest Settlement Officer. It was submitted that they were also informed that based on the said letter and order dated 07.12.2014, the mines of the applicant are not reserved forest areas and, therefore, the letter/order dated 20.07.2013 will not apply to the applicant and accordingly, the applicant shall be commencing her mining activities and accordingly, thereafter, the applicant commenced the mining activities and also paid/procured eroyalty passes were issued to the applicant almost upto March 2015. (3.5) Learned advocate for the applicant further submitted that in view of the developments in TEPL's Special Civil Application No.2193 of 2015, the impugned F.I.R. came to be lodged belatedly against the applicant. It was submitted that in fact the directors/some of the directors are in fact sons of the applicant and the impugned F.I.R. has been filed not only to harass the applicant but also her sons, who are the directors in TEPL and thereby try to create prejudice in the proceedings of Special Civil Application No.2193 of 2015. Lastly, it was urged that the impugned F.I.R. as well as all other consequential and subsequent proceedings arising out of the said F.I.R. are liable to be quashed under section 482 of the Cr.P.C. (4) In response, vehemently opposing the present writ application, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the respondent authority submitted that perusal of the impugned F.I.R. it manifests that the same is lodged for the breach of the guidelines and directions issued by the Apex Court in Writ Petition No.202 of 1995 and the order passed by this court in Civil Application No.3858 of 2013 in Writ Petition (PIL) No.114 of 2012 and pursuant to the aforesaid directions the order passed by Collector, Devbhoomi Dwarka dated 20.07.2013. She has submitted that on bare reading of the impugned F.I.R. it reveals that no mining activities (lease, industrial/commercial units) are to be carried out within 1 km. area of Sanctuary, Marine National park and Marine Sanctuary. She has submitted that on bare reading of the impugned F.I.R. it reveals that no mining activities (lease, industrial/commercial units) are to be carried out within 1 km. area of Sanctuary, Marine National park and Marine Sanctuary. It was submitted that as alleged in the impugned F.I.R. that when the authority has verified from the monthly return filed by the applicant, it came to the notice that the applicant has mined 32,000 MT bauxite in January 2015 and 28,000 MT bauxite in February, 2015. (4.1) Learned Additional Public Prosecutor further submitted that notifications dated 09.7.1976, 12.08.1980 and 20.07.1982 are issued before the order/directions issued by the Apex Court vide order dated 04.08.2006 and the directions issued by this court vide order dated 24.03.2013. (4.2) Referring to the order dated 07.12.2014 passed by the Forest Settlement Officer, Junagadh she has submitted that it is nowhere stated that the area of Virpur Mining lease is not included in the Marine Sanctuary, and he same pertains to reserve Forest Area. She has submitted the same refers that the area of old Marine National Park/Marine Sanctuary. She has further asserted that the area forest area and the marine sanctuary are governed by different provisions of law and the legal status of both are different. It is submitted that the Forest Settlement Officer has passed the order dated 07.12.2014 only taking into consideration the notification dated 07.09.1976 issued by the State government under section 4 of the Indian Forest Act. She has submitted that the subject of the aforesaid order speaks about the forest area to be covered under section 20 of the Act and that too “Cher Forest Area”. It is asserted by her that the applicant has placed reliance on the aforesaid order for the purpose of claiming parity with lease mines of Saurashtra Calcine Bauxite and allied industries, Jamnagar which in fact are forming part of Revenue Survey No.238 of Village Mota Asota and Revenue Survey No.110 of Village Virpur, however, the leases allotted to the present applicant is concerned the same form part of Revenue Survey No.117 of Village Virpur and the same is situated within 1 km. of ecosensitive zone of Marine National Park. of ecosensitive zone of Marine National Park. She has submitted that in the appeal filed against the aforesaid order dated 07.12.2014 by the Deputy Conservator of Forests, Marine National Park, Jamnagar vide order dated 11.07.2016 the Forest Settlement Officer has only partly allowed the appeal and remanded the matter. Thereafter, the Forest Settlement Officer, Junagadh has confirmed the earlier order dated 07.12.2014. Thus, she has disputed that in fact the order dated 07.12.2014 is not in the applicants favour and the same does not apply to the Marine National Park but to Forest Area. (4.3) The learned Additional Public Prosecutor has also invited the attention of this Court to various Maps defining the area falling under the Marine National Park and has submitted that the same indicate that the mines of the applicant are in fact falling within 1 km. area of eco-sensitive zone. She has submitted that vide communication dated 09.03.2017, the Collector, Devbhoomi Dwarka has sought specific opinion from the Director, Marine National Park and Chief Conservator of Forest, Marine National Park, Jamnagar regarding situation of Revenue Survey No.117. The information was sought whether the same falls within the eco-sensitive zone of Marine National Park Marine Sanctuary or not. By the letter dated 10.03.2017, the Chief Conservator of Forest has opined in clear terms that Revenue Survey No.117 is situated or included within 1 km. area of eco-sensitive zone of National Park Marine Sanctuary. Thus, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor has urged that the impugned F.I.R. may not be quashed since the applicant has not challenged the aforesaid communication dated 10.03.2017 wherein it is finally opined that the mines of the applicant are situated in the eco-sensitive zone. (4.4) Lastly, she submitted that considering the gravity of the offence and looking to the contents of the impugned F.I.R., no interference is called for and the present application deserves to be dismissed. (4.5) Mr. Vakil, learned Advocate for the applicant, in response to the aforesaid submissions advanced by learned Additional Public Prosecutor has raised the doubts about the aforesaid letters dated 09.03.2017 and 10.03.2017 and has submitted that the aforesaid letters are issued with mala fide intent solely with a view to overcome the judgment and order dated 11.07.2016 passed by the Forest Settlement Officer after remand. He has submitted that the aforesaid order has attained finality hence, he has submitted that the aforesaid communications do not inspire confidence. He has submitted that the aforesaid order has attained finality hence, he has submitted that the aforesaid communications do not inspire confidence. (4.6) Lastly, it is submitted by learned Advocate Mr. Vakil that issue involved in the present application is squarely covered by the decision of the Apex Court in the case of State (NCT of Delhi) Vs. Sanjay, and allied matters, (2014) 9 S.C.C. 772 , wherein the Apex Court has held that the prohibition contained in section 22 of the MMDR Act is attracted when a person is sought to be prosecuted for contravention of section 4 of the MMDR Act. (5) I have heard the learned advocates for the respective parties at length. The documents as pointed out them are also perused. The same are also taken on record. (6) Though, learned Advocate Mr.Vakil has raised various contentions asserting that the mining activities of the applicant does not fall within the periphery of the Marine National Park, this Court has restrained itself from expressing any opinion on the same since the said issue falls within the realm of disputed question of facts as both the sides have construed the aforesaid orders passed by the concerned authorities in their favor. There are various inter se communications between the authorities as regards the ascertainment of the area falling within Marine National Park. Finally, vide communication dated 10.03.2017 it is opined by the Chief Conservator of Forest, Marine National Park, Jamnagar that Survey No.117 of Village Virpur, Taluka Kalyanpur, District Jamnagar, in which the mines of the petitioner are located fall within the periphery of the eco-sensitive zone of National Park-Marine Sanctuary. It is not in dispute that the said communication is still in force. Learned Advocate Mr.Vakil has raised serious doubts on the communications dated 09.03.2017 ad 10.3.2017. In the considered opinion of this Court the applicant has to challenge the said communications by filing appropriate proceedings and the same cannot be set aside or examined by this Court while exercising its powers under section 482 of the Cr.P.C. (7) However, the core issue which falls for consideration before this Court is whether the impugned F.I.R. registered for the offence under sections 4(1), 4(1)(a) of the MMDR Act is liable to be sustained in view of the provisions of section 22 of the Act. Section 4 and section 22 of the MMDR Act reads as under: “SECTION 4 : Prospecting or mining operations to be under licence or lease (1) No person shall undertake any reconnaissance, prospecting or mining operations in any area, except under and in accordance with the terms and conditions of a reconnaissance permit or of a prospecting licence or, as the case may be, of a mining lease, granted under this Act and the rules made there under Provided that nothing in this subsection shall affect any prospecting or mining operations undertaken in any area in accordance with the terms and conditions of a prospecting licence or mining lease granted before the commencement of this Act which is in force at such commencement. [Provided further that nothing in this subsection shall apply to any prospecting operations undertaken by the Geological Survey of India, the Indian Bureau of Mines, ["the Atomic Minerals Directorate for Exploration and Research"]of the Department of Atomic Energy of the Central Government, the Directorates of Mining and Geology of any State Government (by whatever name called), and the Mineral Exploration Corporation Limited, a Government company within the meaning of "clause (45) of Section 2 of the Companies Act, 2013 (18 of 2013), and any such entity that may be notified for this purpose by the Central Government" ] [Provided also that nothing in this section shall apply to any mining lease (whether called mining lease, mining concession or by any other name) in force immediately before the commencement of this Act in the Union territory of Goa, Daman and Diu.] (1A) No person shall transport or store or cause to be transported or stored any mineral otherwise than in accordance with the provisions of this Act and the rules made there under. (2) ["No reconnaissance permit, prospecting licence or mining lease"]shall be granted otherwise than in accordance with the provisions of this Act and the rules made there under. (2) ["No reconnaissance permit, prospecting licence or mining lease"]shall be granted otherwise than in accordance with the provisions of this Act and the rules made there under. (3) Any State Government may, after prior consultation with the Central Government and in accordance with the rules made under section 18, ["undertake reconnaissance, prospecting or mining operations with respect to any mineral specified in the First Schedule in any area within that State which is not already held under any reconnaissance permit, prospecting licence or mining lease"]]” SECTION 22 : Cognizance of offences No Court shall take cognizance of any offence punishable under this Act or any rules made there under except upon complaint in writing made by a person authorised in this behalf by the Central Government or the State Government.” (8) At this stage, it would be apposite to refer to the judgment rendered by the Apex Court in the case of State (NCT of Delhi) Vs. Sanjay (supra), wherein the Apex while examining the provision of section 22 and section 4 of the MMDR Act has observed thus: “69. Considering the principles of interpretation and the wordings used in Section 22, in our considered opinion, the provision is not a complete and absolute bar for taking action by the police for illegal and dishonestly committing theft of minerals including sand from the riverbed. The Court shall take judicial notice of the fact that over the years rivers in India have been affected by the alarming rate of unrestricted sand mining which is damaging the ecosystem of the rivers and safety of bridges. It also weakens river beds, fish breeding and destroys the natural habitat of many organisms. If these illegal activities are not stopped by the State and the police authorities of the State, it will cause serious repercussions as mentioned hereinabove. It will not only change the river hydrology but also will deplete the ground water levels. 70. There cannot be any dispute with regard to restrictions imposed under the MMDR Act and remedy provided therein. In any case, where there is a mining activity by any person in contravention of the provisions of Section 4 and other sections of the Act, the officer empowered and authorized under the Act shall exercise all the powers including making a complaint before the jurisdictional Magistrate. In any case, where there is a mining activity by any person in contravention of the provisions of Section 4 and other sections of the Act, the officer empowered and authorized under the Act shall exercise all the powers including making a complaint before the jurisdictional Magistrate. It is also not in dispute that the Magistrate shall in such cases take cognizance on the basis of the complaint filed before it by a duly authorized officer. In case of breach and violation of Section 4 and other provisions of the Act, the police officer cannot insist Magistrate for taking cognizance under the Act on the basis of the record submitted by the police alleging contravention of the said Act. In other words, the prohibition contained in Section 22 of the Act against prosecution of a person except on a complaint made by the officer is attracted only when such person sought to be prosecuted for contravention of Section 4 of the Act and not for any act or omission which constitute an offence under Indian Penal Code.” (9) In the present case the impugned F.I.R. is filed for the contravention of provisions of section 4 and other sections of the MMDR Act and no offence under the IPC is alleged against the applicant. Hence, as per the law enunciated by the Apex Court, the prohibition contained in Section 22 of the Mines and Minerals Act against prosecution of a person, except on a complaint made by the officer is attracted only when such person is sought to be prosecuted for contravention of Section 4 of the Mines and Minerals Act and not for any act or omission which constitute an offence under the IPC. (10) Accordingly, the impugned F.I.R. being C.R. No.I-32 of 2015 registered with Kalyanpur Police Station, District Devbhoomi Dwarka as well as all consequential and subsequent proceedings arising from the impugned F.I.R. is hereby quashed. RULE is made absolute. (11) However, it is clarified that it shall be open for the respondent – Department to file a private complaint in the court of the concerned Magistrate for the offence punishable under section 4 of the MMDR Act, through an officer authorized in that behalf, and if such complaint is filed, the concerned Magistrate shall proceed to consider the same in accordance with law. (12) Resultantly, the connected Criminal Misc. (12) Resultantly, the connected Criminal Misc. Application No.1 of 2018 for direction moved in the main writ application stands disposed of.