TATA TEA LTD Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner herein is a company running an instant tea factory at Nallathanni in Munnar. The 2nd respondent, Secretary Munnar Public Interest Protection Association, Munnar, filed an application before the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Devicolam complaining that the wastages of the Instant Tea Division are being washed out into Nallathanni river, thereby polluting water in the river which is used as drinking water by the people of the locality. There are acidic contents in the wastages which are harmful to human health and therefore in the petition appropriate action was demanded for. Thereupon, the Sub Divisional Magistrate passed a preliminary order under S.133(1)(b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short the 'Code') requiring the petitioner company to desist from discharging the effluents from the factory into the Nallathanni river and to make suitable arrangements for the passage and storage of the effluents from the factory in such a manner as to prevent the same from passing into the river within 7 days from the date of the order or to appear before him on 25-5-1983 at 11 A.M. and to show cause why the order should not be enforced. Petitioner having received the order, appeared before the Magistrate and filed objections contending inter alia that the factory was being run from 1964 and it is controlled by the provisions of the Central Act 6 of 1974 and has obtained sanction under the provisions of that Act in the matter of discharge of effluents, that no public nuisance or pollution as alleged in the petition has been caused and that the Magistrate has no jurisdiction to deal with the matter. The case was adjourned and in the meanwhile the petitioner has filed this petition under S.482 of the Code to quash the proceedings before the Sub Divisional Magistrate.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act 1974 (Act 6 of 1974) (for short 'the 'Act') is a complete Code in itself in the matter of prevention and control of water pollution, that it provides for measures and control of such water pollution and devises machinery for implementation of the objects and purpose of the Act and provides for punishment to those who indulge in water pollution. Therefore, it is contended that the provisions of S.133 of the Code in so far as they relate to water pollution must be deemed to have been impliedly repealed. Learned counsel for the second respondent contended, on the other hand, that there are significant differences between the two statutes, that provisions of S.133 of the Code are wider in scope and therefore, the theory of implied repeal cannot be accepted.

(3.) S.133 of the Code vests power with the District Magistrate, Sub Divisional Magistrate or a specially empowered Executive Magistrate to take action as contemplated therein in contingencies mentioned in sub clauses (a) to (f) of sub-s.(1) thereof.