NITIN MUJUMDAR Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE petitions are filed by the accused in Crl. Case Nos. 532/2006, 531/ 2006,523/2006. 527/2006, pending on the file of JMFC Court, Dandeli, seeking quashing of the said proceedings.

(2.) THE Karnataka State Pollution Control board (in short State Board), through its Regional officer, Karwar, has lodged the complaints against the petitioners herein alleging violation of Sections 21 and 22 of Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981, (for short hereinafter referred to as the Air act'), which is punishable under Section 37 of the "air Act". It is alleged in the complaint that the petitioners have illegally established and are opening the Iron Ore Stack Yard, at various places in Uttara Kannada District, without the previous consent of the Karnataka state Pollution Control Board (for short hereinafter referred to as the 'state Board'); that the accused have not provided any pollution control measure in spite of repeated requests and instructions by the officials of State board : That the meetings were held between the representatives of the accused and the officials of the State Board and in the said meetings, the accused have agreed for providing pollution control measures to the Iron Ore stack Yards and prayed for time for the said purpose; In spite of the same, the accused-petitioners did not provide any pollution control measure to the Iron Ore Stack Yards. The permission is not obtained for establishing iron Ore Stack Yards even thereafter. As the petitioners continued their illegal operations without complying with the norms, as stipulated under Sections 21 and 22 of "air Act", the complaint came to be lodged. Prior to lodging of complaints, the joint inspection of the officials of State Board with the representations of the petitioners was made and during the said inspection it was observed as under :-

(3.) AS the activities of the accused are detrimental to the society at large and as the Iron ore particles used to spread and mingle with air, which is detrimental to the nature and health of public at large, the complaints came to be lodged before the JMFC Court, Dandeli, as aforementioned by the State Board represented by its Regional Officer against the petitioners herein. The learned Magistrate after perusing the complaint and the documents produced along with the complaint, issued process against the petitioners. The petitioners have in these petitions have sought for quashing the proceedings pending before the jmfc Court.