AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
N.K. Kapoor, J.
This judgment shall dispose of Criminal Misc. No. 5552M and 5549M of 1991 as the questions of law and fact is identical in both these petitions.
Facts are being taken from the Criminal Misc. No. 5552M of 1991. The petitioner seeks quashing of complaint Annexure P7 u/s 33 of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 (for short ''the Act'') and summoning order Annexure P8 dated 22.12.1987 and the subsequent order passed by the SubDivisional Judicial Magistrate, Annexure P6, dated 6.4.1991 and also the order of the Additional Sessions Judge, Annexure P8A, dated 1.7.89 and order of the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class Annexure P8/E dated 29.7.1988 or for grant of any other relief deemed fit and proper by this Court.
This present petition has been filed by M/s Sukhna Paper Mills Limited through Sh. Pritam. Singh, Managing Director. As per averments made in the petition, M/s Sukhna Paper Mills Limited is a registered company and is engaged in the manufacture of paper. The paper is made from wheat straw and old and unserviceable gunny bags. In the process, water is used for washing cooked pulp. This water is discharged from the mill and is primarily used for the irrigation of the adjoining fields in the mill. It is the case of the petitioner that the Punjab State Board for the Prevention & Control of Water Pollution, Patiala, (for short the Board'') initiated proceedings under Sections 43, 44 and 47 of the Act by filing one complaint and u/s 33 of the Act by filing another complaint. In both these complaints, the company was served through Mani Singh in one case and through Sh. Pritam Singh, Managing Director, in the other case. Both the aforesaid persons were released on bail.
Two petitions were filed in the High Court for quashing of the complaint bearing Crl. Misc. No. 2949M of 1989 titled Mani Singh Kanwar v. Punjab State Board; and Crl. Misc. No. 7493M of 1989 titled M/s Sukhna Paper Mills v. Punjab State Board, for quashing of these complaints under Section 33 of the Act and the summoning order. Both these criminal miscellaneous petitions came up for hearing before S.D. Bajaj, J. (as he then was) and were disposed of on 5.2.91 with the following order :
Crl. Misc. No. 2949M of 1989 :
"It is reported that the respondents have waived the contravention and are taking steps to regularise it in terms of the request made by the petitioners in this regard. In result Crl. Misc. No. 2949M of 1989 is dismissed as infructuous."
Crl. Misc. No. 7493M of 1989.
"It is reported that the respondents have waived, the contravention and are taking steps to regularise it in terms of the request made by the petitioners in this regard. In result, CrI. Misc. No. 7493M of 1989 is dismissed as infructuous."
After passing the above orders, the petitioner appeared before the Trial Court. Counsel for the Board made a request for adjournment of the case to seek appropriate instructions from the Board. On 20.3.1991 complaint under sections 43, 44 and 47 of the Act was withdrawn. As regards the complaint under section u/s 33 of the Act, as per instructions of the Board, it was stated that the accused be proceeded according to law. The present, petition is for quashing of complaint u/s 33 of the Act, summoning order and other orders passed by the Magistrate as well as Additional Sessions Judge noticed in the earlier part of the judgment.
Pursuance to the notice of motion, reply has been filed on behalf of the respondentBoard. It has been stated that the company engaged in the manufacturing of Kraft paper for which the company is using wheat straw, unserviceable gunny bags and bagasse as raw material. According to the respondent, the water after use in the mill contains a very high concentration of pollutants and a major portion of which is discharged into the Sukhna Choe, as per analysis of the effluent samples collected on 13.5.1988, 4.5.1990, 29.1.1991, 8.10.1991 and 16.1.1992 reveals that the industries are discharging the pollutants in excess of the limits prescribed by the Board into Sukhna Choe. In fact, the respondentBoard has been accommodating the petitioner by granting him extension of period for taking necessary steps to reduce the high concentration of pollutants by setting up necessary devices. Yet the petitioner company did not adhere to any of the directions issued by the Court. The petitioner is violating the mandate of the Act and so the proceedings initiated under section 33 of the Act is according to law. Since the discharge of the pollutants is in excess than the standard prescribed, offence u/s 33 of the Act is clearly made out. Thus, there is no ground for quashing the complaint and the summoning order etc.
The first contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that since Pritam Singh, the then Managing Director, has left the company, the present Managing Director, Sh. Pritpal Singh cannot be made liable for the offence, if any, committed by the company before he joined the company. Secondly, the earlier petitions were withdrawn in view of the assurance given by the respondentBoard that the matter would be dropped. In fact, pursuance to the assurance given, proceedings u/s 43, 44 and 47 of the Act were withdrawn by the Board. Even on merits, no case for persecution u/s 33 of the Act is made out as the company has almost complied with all the directions given by the Board and have set up devises thereby reducing the pollutants to the minimum in the water discharged. In addition thereto the counsel submitted that the petitioner company is a sick miff and the matter be examined more compassionately.
This is petitioner''s second attempt to stall the criminal proceedings initiated way back in the year 1987. Earlier petitions were dismissed as infructuous on 5.2.1991. A bare reading of this order reveals that it merely noted what was stated by the petitioner or his counsel that the respondents have waived the contravention and are steps to regularise it in terms of the request made by the petitioners in this regard. As regards regularisation of certain infringements of the Act is concerned, necessary relief has already been granted to the petitioner as complaint under section 43, 44 and 47 of the Act have been dropped. Section 33 of the Act is in the nature of making an application to the Court for restraining apprehended pollution of water in streams or wells where it is apprehended by the Board that the water in any stream or well is likely to be polluted by reason of the disposal or likely disposal of any matter therein, it can make an application to a Metropolitan Magistrate or a Judicial : Magistrate of the first class, for restraining the person who is likely to cause such pollution from so causing. On receipt of such an application, the Court can restrain such persons from polluting the water in any stream or well or ask him to desist from polluting such stream or well and in case such a direction is not complied with, the Court can authorise the Board to undertake the removal or disposal of the matter in such a manner as may be specified by the Court. Since the petitioner did not desist from discharging the pollutants in the stream, the Court rightly summoned the petitioner for necessary action. A bare perusal of application/petition under section 33 of the Act, Annexure P7, reveals that samples of trade effluent of the industry collected on 22.11.1984 under section 21 of the Water Act, 1974 were found in excess of the tolerance limits. In fact, representative of the company Sh. Mani Singh, Works Manager, who was served with a notice was present at the spot. Even otherwise, the matter is yet to be examined by the Magistrate as per material to be adduced in evidence. On the basis of complaint, the court, prima facie, found it a fit case to proceed against the petitioner company and its Managing Director/General Manager. No error has been pointed out by the learned counsel in the order of summoning passed by the Magistrate. Thus, finding no merit in this petition, the same is ordered to be dismissed.