VISHAL KALASARIA AND ORSversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA

SKN                                                WP-878.26 (08092026).doc




         IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
               CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

             CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 878 OF 2026

1. Vishal Kalsaria,
   Age- 44 years, Occ: Business,
   Having Address- 339A, 1st Floor
   Raghuleela Mall, Mahavir Nagar,
   Kandivali (W), Mumbai- 400 067.

2. Hatim Hussain Sakerwala,
   Age: 41 years, Occ: Businesss,
   Having address- S.No. 108/1/2, Behind
   Shree Kotiyar Katiyavadi Dhabha, Sasunavghar,
   Vasai, Palghar- 401 208.

3. Harish Vyas,
   Age 52 years, Occ: Business,
   Having address- Survey No.98/97,
   Plot No.505, NH-8, Sasunavghar,
   Vasai, Palghar- 401 208.                             …     Petitioners.

            V/s.

1. The State of Maharashtra
   (At the instance of Naigaon Police Station).         …     Respondent.

                         _____________________

Mr.Murtaza Najmi with Shambhu Jha, Farida Najmi, Nancy Kanungo, Afsar
Ansari and Suraj Pandey for the Petitioners.
Ms.Manisha Tidke, APP for the Respondent-State.
                   _______________________________


                   CORAM       :     RANJITSINHA RAJA BHONSALE , J.
            RESERVED ON        :     6th AUGUST 2026.
         PRONOUNCED ON         :     11th SEPTEMBER 2026.


                                                                   1/18
SKN                                                     WP-878.26 (08092026).doc



JUDGMENT :

1)        By the present Petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the

Constitution of India read with section 528 of Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha

Sanhita, 2023 (“BNSS” for short), the Petitioners seek quashing and

setting aside of First Information Report (FIR) No.0287 of 2025 dated 7 th

June 2025 registered with Naigaon Police Station, District- Palghar for the

offences punishable under sections 223, 270, 279 read with section 3(5) of

Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (“BNS” for short).

2)        Perusal of the FIR indicates that the same has been filed under

sections 223, 270, 279 read with section 3(5) of BNS on the complaint

lodged by Village Revenue Officer (Gram Mahasul Adhikari). That, the

Complainant, a Village Revenue Officer has lodged complaint regarding

pollution by the Ready Mix Concrete (RMC) Plant in villages Sasunavghar

and    Maljipada.   That,   as   certain   complaints    were    received,     the

Complainant visited the RMC Plants and conducted an inspection. This

was pursuant to the direction of the Tahasildar dated 22 nd April 2025.

That, the said RMC Plants are being run illegally and without licencse.

2.1)      That, on 25th April 2025 between 10.00 a.m. to 5.00 p.m., 28

RMC Plants and Asphalt Plants in the villages Sasunavghar and Maljipada

were inspected. The FIR proceeds on the basis that either the said Plants

did not have permission or the owners of the said Plants did not produce


                                                                        2/18
SKN                                                 WP-878.26 (08092026).doc

permission before the said Officer. That, the said Plants were run without

taking any permission and in violation of the Government orders. That, the

said Plants are causing air and noise pollution. That, the water from the

said Plants is discharged in natural source of water which is causing

pollution of water which is otherwise used by the general public.

3)        Mr. Murtaza Najmi, learned Advocate appearing for the

Petitioners submits that,

3.1)      The said RMC Plants were having all requisite licences,

approvals and permissions from the competent Authorities such as MPCB,

BVBMC etc..     That, the inspection was carried out pursuant to the

directions of Tahasildar. That, on 13 th May 2025, Enquiry Report was

prepared recommending closure of RMC Plants and Asphalt Plants. That,

the present FIR is based on the said report and observations therein.

3.2)      That, pursuant to the notice dated 15 th June 2025 issued by the

Investigating Officer to the Petitioners under section 94 of the BNSS

calling upon them to produce documents, the Petitioners have furnished

all requisite and relevant documents along with their reply dated 25 th June

2025 which includes necessary permissions, Licences and approvals

obtained from various competent authorities.

3.3)      As regards allegation in the FIR that the said RMC Plants are

causing air and water pollution, he submits that Maharashtra Pollution



                                                                    3/18
SKN                                                  WP-878.26 (08092026).doc

Control Board (“MPCB” for short) has been constituted by the State

Government under section 4 of the Water (Prevention and Control of

Pollution) Act, 1974. The MPCB functions as the State Board for air

pollution control, and under sections 6 and 25 of the Environment

(Protection) Act, 1986. The MPCB acts as the implementing and

monitoring authority for various rules framed under the Act.

3.4)      That, the allegations in the FIR are related to The Water

(Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 (“Water Act” for short)

and Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 (“Air Act” for

short). Both Acts clearly provide that, if there is violation of provisions of

the said Acts, criminal case/ prosecution can be initiated only through

Pollution Control Board or by an officer authorized by the Board. In the

present case, as the same has not been done as the FIR in question is

directly registered by the police. The registration of the FIR is completely

illegal and unsustainable.

3.5)      Section 223 of BNS cannot be the subject matter of the FIR

because section 215(1)(a) of BNSS clearly provides that no court can take

cognizance of the offence under sections 206 to 223 of BNS unless there is

a written complaint from the public/government servant concerned whose

order is violated. In the present case, there is no such written complaint.

3.6)      Under section 4(2) of BNSS, the offence under any special law



                                                                      4/18
SKN                                                   WP-878.26 (08092026).doc

shall be dealt in accordance with that special law and as per the procedure

provided therein. That, both the Water Act and the Air Act are special

enactments and provide for the procedure for initiating any prosecution or

for taking cognizance of the prosecution. In view thereof, the general

provisions of BNSS to register offence cannot be applied. That, the facts of

the present case would clearly be covered by parameters 6 and 7 as

enumerated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Haryana

v. Bhajan lal.

4)        Ms. Dhanalaxmi Krishnaiyer,       learned A.P.P. appearing for the

state submits that,

4.1)      The action taken by the Village Revenue Officer is pursuant to

the directions of Tahasildar and in accordance with law. That, no case of

mala fides can be made out.

4.2)      The inspection was carried out in respect of various RMC Plants

and Asphalt Plants. Reading of the FIR would indicate that, offences under

sections 223, 270, 279 and 3(5) of BNS are clearly made out.

4.3)      Learned A.P.P., however, fairly submits that FIR has been filed by

the concerned Village Revenue Officer and not in accordance with the

provisions of the special Acts i.e. the Water Act and the Air Act.

5)        Section 43 of the Air Act reads as under:

          “43. Cognizance of offences.—(1) No court shall take
          cognizance of any offence under this Act except on a

                                                                      5/18
SKN                                               WP-878.26 (08092026).doc

       complaint made by—

        (a)      a Board or any officer authorised in this behalf by
        it; or
        (b)      any person who has given notice of not less than
        sixty days, in the manner prescribed, of the alleged offence
        and of his intention to make a complaint to the Board or
        officer authorised as aforesaid,
       and no court inferior to that of a Metropolitan Magistrate
       or a Judicial Magistrate of the first class shall try any
       offence punishable under this Act.
       (2) Where a complaint has been made under clause (b) of
       sub-section (1), the Board shall, on demand by such
       person, make available the relevant reports in its possession
       to that person:
       Provided that the Board may refuse to make any such
       report available to such person if the same is, in its opinion,
       against the public interest.

5.1)   Section 49 of the Water Act reads as under:

       “49. Cognizance of offences.— (1) No court shall take
       cognizance of any offence under this Act except on a
       complaint made by—
       (a)      a Board or any officer authorised in this behalf by
       it; or
       (b)      any person who has given notice of not less than
       sixty days, in the manner prescribed, of the alleged offence
       and of his intention to make a complaint, to the Board or
       officer authorised as aforesaid,
        and no court inferior to that of a Metropolitan Magistrate
        or a Judicial Magistrate of the first class shall try any
        offence punishable under this Act.
       (2) Where a complaint has been made under clause (b) of
       sub-section (1), the Board shall, on demand by such
       person, make available the relevant reports in its possession
       to that person:
       Provided that the Board may refuse to make any such
       report available to such person if the same is, in its opinion,
       against the public interest.
       (3) Notwithstanding anything contained in section 29 of
       the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), it shall


                                                                   6/18
SKN                                                   WP-878.26 (08092026).doc

          be lawful for any Judicial Magistrate of the first class or for
          any Metropolitan Magistrate to pass a sentence of
          imprisonment for a term exceeding two years or of fine
          exceeding two thousand rupees on any person convicted of
          an offence punishable under this Act.”


6)        Perusal of the FIR would indicate that the offences alleged

to have been committed are in respect of acts causing air or water

pollution. Sections invoked by the said FIR are sections 223, 270,

279 and 3(5) of BNS. Section 223 pertains to disobedience of the

order duly promulgated by a public servant. Section 215(1)(a) of

BNSS states that, no court can take cognizance of any offence

punishable under sections 206 to 223 of BNS except on written

complaint from the public servant concerned or of some other public

servant to whom he is administratively subordinate or of some other

public servant who is authorised by the concerned public servant to

do so. In the present case, the FIR does not clearly state as to which

order was disobeyed. As such, as far as offence under section 223 of

BNS is concerned, the FIR is unsustainable on this count.

7)        Section 270 of BNS refers to public nuisance by a person

who does any act or is guilty of an illegal omission which causes any

common injury, danger or annoyance to the public or to the people in

general who dwell or occupy property in the vicinity. Section 279 of

BNS deals with fouling water of public spring or reservoir. FIR is filed

                                                                      7/18
SKN                                                   WP-878.26 (08092026).doc

with the allegation that RMC Plants are being run without requisite

permissions or licences from the competent authorities and the said

Plants are causing air and water pollution in the said vicinity.

8)        Section 2(e), (j) and (k) of the Water Act reads as under:

         “2. Definitions.- In this Act, unless the context otherwise
          requires,-

         (a) to (d)       …..

         (e) “pollution” means such contamination of water or such
         alteration of the physical, chemical or biological properties
         of water or such discharge of any sewage or trade effluent
         or of any other liquid, gaseous or solid substance into water
         (whether directly or indirectly) as may, or is likely to, create
         a nuisance or render such water harmful or injurious to
         public health or safety, or to domestic, commercial,
         industrial, agricultural or other legitimate uses, or to the life
         and health of animals or plants or of acquatic organisms;

         (j) “stream” includes—
             (i) river;
             (ii) water course (whether flowing or for the time being
                   dry);
             (iii) inland water (whether natural or artificial);
             (iv) sub-terranean waters;
             (v) sea or tidal waters to such extent or, as the case may
                   be, to such point as the State Government may, by
                   notification in the Official Gazette, specify in this
                   behalf;

         (k) “trade effluent” includes any liquid, gaseous or solid
         substance which is discharged from any premises used for
         carrying on any 3[industry, operation or process, or
         treatment and disposal system, other than domestic
         sewage.”


9)        Section 21 of the Water Act confers powers on the State Board



                                                                       8/18
SKN                                                 WP-878.26 (08092026).doc

or any officer empowered by it in this behalf to take samples of effluents

and also provides for the procedure to be followed. Section 22 thereof

deals with the reports of the result of analysis on samples taken under

section 21. Section 24 provides for prohibition on use of stream or well for

disposal of polluting matter. Section 25 deals with restrictions on new

outlets and new discharges. Section 33 thereof empowers the State Board

to make an application to the Courts for restraining apprehended pollution

of water in streams or wells. Section 41 provides for penalties in case of

failure to comply with directions under sub-section (2) or sub-section (3)

of section 20, or orders issued under clause (c) of sub-section (1) of

section 32 or directions issued under sub-section (2) of section 33 or

section 33A.

10)       Most importantly section 49 of the water act provides for

cognizance of offence under the said Act. The said section specifically

provides that no Court shall take cognizance of any offence under the Act

except on a complaint made by the Board or any officer authorised by it in

that behalf or by any person who gives notice of not less that sixty days, in

the prescribed manner, of the alleged offence and of his intention to make

a complaint, to the Board or an officer authorised as aforesaid. It further

provides that no court inferior to that of a Metropolitan Magistrate or a

Judicial Magistrate of the First Class shall try any offence punishable under



                                                                     9/18
SKN                                                 WP-878.26 (08092026).doc

the Act. Sub-section (2) of section 49 prescribes that where the complaint

has been made under clause (b) of sub-section (1), the Board shall, on

demand by such person, make available the relevant reports in its

possession to that person, unless the same, in the opinion of the Board, is

against the public interest. A perusal of section 49 would indicate that the

Water Act provides for the procedure and manner in which cognizance of

the offence under the Act can be taken.

11)       Similarly, air pollutant, air pollution and emission are defined in

the Air Act as under:

          “2. Definitions.—In this Act, unless the context otherwise
          requires,—
          (a) “air pollutant” means any solid, liquid or gaseous
          substance (including noise) present in the atmosphere in
          such concentration as may be or tend to be injurious to
          human beings or other living creatures or plants or
          property or environment;

          (b) “air pollution” means the presence in the atmosphere
          of any air pollutant;
                …..       ….. ….. ….. …..

          (j) “emission” means any solid or liquid or gaseous
          substance coming out of any chimney, duct or flue or any
          other outlet;”

12)       Section 19 of the Air Act confers powers on State Board to

declare any area or areas within the State as air pollution control area or

areas for the purposes of this Act. Section 22A speaks about power of the

Board to make application to the Court for restraining a person from



                                                                    10/18
SKN                                                  WP-878.26 (08092026).doc

causing air pollution. Section 24 of the Air Act gives power to the Board of

entry and inspection. Section 27 thereof deals with the reports of analysis

on samples taken under section 26. Section 31A empowers the State Board

to give directions for restraining air pollution. Section 38 thereof provides

for penalties in case of failure to comply with directions issued by the

Board under section 31A. Section 43 of the Air Act deals with cognizance

of offence under the Act in the same manner as is provided in section 49 of

the Water Act as observed above.

13)       In the case of Swararaj @ Raj Shrikant Thackeray v. The State

of Maharashtra, Criminal Application No.670/2014 decided on 10 th

November 2023, the Division Bench of this court observed as under:

       “9. It would be apparent from perusal of Section 188 of IPC
       that, the provision is in two parts. The first part is that, there
       must be an order lawfully passed by a public servant, duly
       authorized in this regard directed towards a person directing
       him to abstain from a certain act or to take certain order with
       certain property in his possession or under his management.
       The order must be in the knowledge of the person to whom it
       is directed and the person who despite having the knowledge
       of the order disobeys such direction. The second part provides
       that,if such disobedience causes or tends to cause obstruction,
       annoyance or injury or such risk and if such disobedience
       causes or tends to cause danger to human life, health or safety
       or a riot or affray shall be punished with the sentence
       prescribed therein.

       13. Section 195 of Cr.P.C. places an embargo on the power of
       the Court to take cognizance of an offence under Section 188
       of IPC except on a complaint in writing of the public servant
       concerned. Complaint is defined under Section 2(d) of Cr.P.C.
       and police report has been defined under Section 2(r) of

                                                                     11/18
SKN                                               WP-878.26 (08092026).doc

      Cr.P.C. as under:

          2. Definitions. –(d) “complaint” means any allegation
          made orally or in writing to a Magistrate, with a view to
          his taking action under this Code, that some person,
          whether known or unknown, has committed an offence,
          but does not include a police report.
          (r) “police report” means a report forwarded by a police
          officer to a Magistrate under sub-section(2) of section
          173;

      14. Thus, from a reading of the definition of the word
      "Complaint", it would be crystal clear that, the complaint does
      not include a police report. Admittedly, in the present case,
      there is no written complaint filed by the public servant and
      provisions of Section 154 of Cr.P.C have been invoked to lodge
      the first information report. Record indicates that, pursuant to
      the investigation, the final report was submitted under Section
      173(2) of Cr.P.C which is culminated in SCC No. 41/2011.
            The meaning of the expression ”taking cognisance” is no
      longer res integra and has been explained in various decisions
      to mean judicial application of the mind to the facts
      mentioned in the complaint with a view to taking further
      action. The scheme of the Cr.P.C in regard to the cognisable
      cases is that, trial follows cognisance and cognisance is
      preceded by investigation. What is barred is taking of
      cognisance by the Magistrate except on a written complaint
      filed. The bar is absolute and the Court could not have taken
      cognisance except on written complaint.

      15. The decisions relied upon by Mr. Nangre, learned counsel
      for the Applicant are squarely applicable to the facts of the
      present case. The decision of the Apex Court in the case of C.
      Muniappan & Ors. vs. State of T. ND. K. Rajendran & Ors.
      (supra) would also lend credence to the proposition that, the
      provision of Section 195 of Cr.P.C. bars the Court from taking
      cognizance under Section 188 of IPC without a written
      complaint. That non compliance of it would vitiate the
      prosecution and all other consequential orders and in absence
      of such a complaint, the trial and conviction will be void ab
      initio being without jurisdiction.”



                                                                  12/18
SKN                                                 WP-878.26 (08092026).doc

14)      The Madras High Court in the case of Jeevanandham v. State,

Cri.O.P. No.1356/2018 and others decided on 20 th September 2018,

observed as under:

       “25. In view of the discussions, the following guidelines are
       issued insofar as an offence under Section 188 of IPC, is
       concerned:

       a)    A Police Officer cannot register an FIR for any of the
       offences falling under Section 172 to 188 of IPC.

       b)    A Police Officer by virtue of the powers conferred under
       Section 41 of Cr.P.C will have the authority to take action under
       Section 41 of Cr.P.C., when a cognizable offence under Section
       188 IPC is committed in his presence or where such action is
       required, to prevent such person from committing an offence
       under Section 188 of IPC.

       c)    The role of the Police Officer will be confined only to the
       preventive action as stipulated under Section 41 of Cr.P.C and
       immediately thereafter, he has to inform about the same to the
       public servant concerned/authorised, to enable such public
       servant to give a complaint in writing before the jurisdictional
       Magistrate, who shall take cognizance of such complaint on
       being prima facie satisfied with the requirements of Section
       188 of IPC.

       d)     In order to attract the provisions of Section 188 of IPC,
       the written complaint of the public servant concerned should
       reflect the following ingredients namely;
       i) that there must be an order promulgated by the public
       servant;
       ii) that such public servant is lawfully empowered to
       promulgate it;
       iii)that the person with knowledge of such order and being
       directed by such order to abstain from doing certain act or to
       take certain order with certain property in his possession and
       under his management, has disobeyed; and
       iv)that such disobedience causes or tends to cause;
       (a) obstruction, annoyance or risk of it to any person
       lawfully employed; or

                                                                   13/18
SKN                                                 WP-878.26 (08092026).doc

       (b)   danger to human life, health or safety; or
       (c)   a riot or affray.

       e)    The promulgation issued under Section 30(2) of the
       Police Act, 1861, must satisfy the test of reasonableness and
       can only be in the nature of a regulatory power and not a
       blanket power to trifle any democratic dissent of the citizens by
       the Police.

       f)    The promulgation through which, the order is made
       known must be by something done openly and in public and
       private information will not be a promulgation. The order must
       be notified or published by beat of drum or in a Gazette or
       published in a newspaper with a wide circulation.

       g)     No Judicial Magistrate should take cognizance of a Final
       Report when it reflects an offence under Section 172 to 188 of
       IPC. An FIR or a Final Report will not become void ab initio
       insofar as offences other than Section 172 to 188 of IPC and a
       Final Report can be taken cognizance by the Magistrate insofar
       as offences not covered under Section 195(1)(a)(i) of Cr.P.C.

       h)    The Director General of Police, Chennai and Inspector
       General of the various Zones are directed to immediately
       formulate a process by specifically empowering public servants
       dealing with for an offence under Section 188 of IPC to ensure
       that there is no delay in filing a written complaint by the public
       servants concerned under Section 195(1)(a)(i) of Cr.P.C.”


15)      In the case of Raj Transit Infra Private Limited and another v.

The State of Maharashtra, Writ Petition No.15034/2025 decided on 13th

November 2025, the Division Bench of this Court observed as under:

       “ This writ petition filed by the Raj Transit Infra Private
       Limited through one of its directors, namely, Mr. Rajendra
       Malayya Kalal seeks to challenge the closure directions dated
       8th October 2025 issued by the Regional Office of the
       Maharashtra Pollution Control Board, Thane (for short,
       MPCB) under section 33A of the Water (Prevention and
       Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 (for short, Water Act) and

                                                                    14/18
SKN                                                  WP-878.26 (08092026).doc

        section 31A of the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution)
        Act,1981 (for short, Air Act).

        9. For the aforesaid reasons, the communication dated 8th
        October 2025 containing the closure directions is quashed.
        However, we grant liberty to the MPCB to conduct an
        inspection of the RMC plant of the petitioner-company and, if
        any deficiency is detected, it may issue a show-cause notice
        after affording sufficient opportunity to the petitioner-
        company to rectify those deficiencies.”

16)       The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Jeewan Kumar Raut

Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation reported in AIR 2009 SC 2763 has

observed that :

        “13. The Appropriate Authority, subject to exceptions
        provided for in TOHO, thus, is only authorized to investigate
        cases of breach of any of the provisions thereof, whether penal
        or otherwise. Ordinarily, any person can set the criminal law
        in motion. The Parliament and the State Legislatures,
        however, keeping in view the sensitivity and/ or importance of
        the subject, have carved out specific areas where violations of
        any of the provisions of a special statute like TOHO can be
        dealt with only by the authorities specified therein.

        15. TOHO being a special statute, Section 4 of the Code,
        which ordinarily would be applicable for investigation into a
        cognizable offence or the other provisions, may not be
        applicable. Section 4 provides for investigation, inquiry, trial,
        etc. according to the provisions of the Code. Sub-section (2) of
        Section 4, however, specifically provides that offences under
        any other law shall be investigated, inquired into, tried and
        otherwise dealt with according to the same provisions, but
        subject to any enactment for the time being in force regulating
        the manner or place of investigating, inquiring into, tried or
        otherwise dealing with such offences. TOHO being a special
        Act and the matter relating to dealing with offences
        thereunder having been regulated by reason of the provisions
        thereof, there cannot be any manner of doubt whatsoever that
        the same shall prevail over the provisions of the Code.


                                                                     15/18
SKN                                                WP-878.26 (08092026).doc

      16. The investigation in terms of Section 13(3)(iv) of
      TOHO, thus, must be conducted by an authorized officer.
      Nobody else could do it. For the aforementioned reasons, the
      officer incharge of the Gurgaon Police Station had no other
      option but to hand over the investigation to the appropriate
      authority.

      19. Section 22 of TOHO prohibits taking of cognizance
      except on a complaint made by an appropriate authority or
      the person who had made a complaint earlier to it as laid
      down therein. Respondent, although, has all the powers of an
      investigating agency, it expressly has been statutorily
      prohibited from filing a police report. It could file a complaint
      petition only as an appropriate authority so as to comply with
      the requirements contained in Section 22 of TOHO. If by
      reason of the provisions of TOHO, filing of a police report by
      necessary implication is necessarily forbidden, the question of
      its submitting a report in terms of Sub-section (2) of Section
      173 of the Code did not and could not arise. In other words, if
      no police report could be filed, Sub- section (2) of Section 167
      of the Code was not attracted.

      20. It is a well-settled principle of law that if a special
      statute lays down procedures, the ones laid down under the
      general statutes shall not be followed. In a situation of this
      nature, the respondent could carry out investigations in
      exercise of its authorization under Section 13(3)(iv) of TOHO.
      While doing so, it could exercise such powers which are
      otherwise vested in it. But, as it could not file a police report
      but a complaint petition only; Sub-section (2) of Section 167
      of the Code may not be applicable. The provisions of the
      Code, thus, for all intent and purport, would apply only to an
      extent till conflict arises between the provisions of the Code
      and TOHO and as soon as the area of conflict reaches, TOHO
      shall prevail over the Code. Ordinarily, thus, although in terms
      of the Code, the respondent upon completion of investigation
      and upon obtaining remand of the accused from time to time,
      was required to file a police report, it was precluded from
      doing so by reason of the provisions contained in Section 22
      of TOHO.”

17)     Neither section 43 of the Air Act nor section 49 of the Water Act

                                                                   16/18
SKN                                                 WP-878.26 (08092026).doc

permits any Revenue Officer to file complaint under the said Acts. Under

both the sections, either the complaint has to be filed by the Board or any

officer authorized in that behalf by it, and if any person is aggrieved he

should give 60 days notice to the Board of the alleged offence and his

intention to make a complaint. In the present case, I do not find that the

provisions of section 43 of the Air Act or that of section 49 of the Water

Act have been complied with. The Water Act and Air Act are special Acts

and provide for a complete procedure and manner in which action is to be

taken in respect of any violations under the Act. Admittedly, the complaint

has been filed by the Village Revenue Officer and not by Board i.e. MPCB.

Further there is no notice issued by the Village Revenue Officer to the

MPCB under the aforesaid sections. The said position has been fairly

conceded by the learned A.P.P. appearing for the State.

18)       For the aforesaid reasons, I find that the FIR in question as

registered by the Village Revenue Officer against the Petitioners is without

authority of law on the ground that as he had not given a notice required

either under section 43 of the Air Act or under section 49 of the Water Act.

19)       For the aforesaid reasons, I have no hesitation in taking the view

that the F.I.R. in question, as registered by the police on the complaint

made by a Village Revenue Officer against the Petitioners, is without

authority of law both on the ground that he could not have registered such



                                                                    17/18
SKN                                                  WP-878.26 (08092026).doc

F.I.R. on the complaint by Village Revenue Officer who had not given

notice of 60 days to the MPCB, and, in any case, the F.I.R. is registered

without prior sanction of the specified Authority.

20)       In that view of the matter, the petition succeeds, and the F.I.R.

No.0287 of 2025 dated 7th June 2025 registered with Naigaon Police

Station, District- Palghar for the offences punishable under sections 223,

270, 279 read with section 3(5) of BNS is quashed and set aside.

21)       It is made clear that quashing of F.I.R. does not result in

condoning the unauthorised development, if any, by the Petitioners which

is contrary to the law, particularly the Air Act and Water Act. Nor does it

result in condoning any act of the Petitioners which leads to the

contamination of the water or the air or the environment in general.     It is

made it clear that, the MPCB is at liberty to conduct a detailed inspection

of the RMC Plants and take all further steps as required in accordance with

law in respect of violations, if any. It will be open to the appropriate

Authority under the Act to proceed against the Petitioners in that behalf in

accordance with law.



                                (RANJITSINHA RAJA BHONSALE, J.)




                                                                    18/18