MOOSA RAZA Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner / original accused no. 8 has filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for quashing and setting aside the Criminal Complaint No. 325/2006 pending in the Court of the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Mundra, Kutch. This Court has admitted the petition on 07. 03. 2007 and granted ad-interim relief in terms of Para 19 (1) (b), thereby staying the further proceedings of the complaint, qua the petitioner.

(2.) IT is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner has served the Indian Administrative Service from the years 1960 to 1995. The petitioner retired as Secretary to Government of India having served in the position in both the Cabinet Secretary and Minister of State. Even after retirement, he served as Chairman of the Standing Conference of Public Enterprise (SCOPE ). He was also associated with various social and industrial organizations. He was Chairman of various institutions, a detailed list of which was given in the memo of the petition. The petitioner was also the Director of the accused no. 1 company, i. e. Jindal Saw Limited, during the period from 30. 07. 2001 till 13. 05. 2005. The accused no. 1 company has one pipe plant at Mundra, Kutch. The plant was set up after invitation given by the Gujarat Government in the Vibrant Gujarat programme. The plant was also set up after an assurance given by the State Government under the Single Window Environmental Clearance. Gujarat State Pollution Control Board, under the instructions of State of Gujarat issued no objection Certificate on 05. 12. 2004 to Jindal Saw Limited.

(3.) ON 15. 02. 2007, the petitioner received a summons from the Court of the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Mundra, Kutch being Criminal Case No. 325/2006 in the matter of complaint filed by one Mr. Jaganbhai Khalabhai Patel against Jindal Saw Limited and nine other persons and the petitioner was shown as accused no. 8 in the said complaint. It was alleged in the complaint that the accused no. 1 and its Directors have violated some of provisions of the Environmental Protection Act, 1986 and Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974. It is the case of the petitioner before this Court that there is no allegation that the petitioner had personally violated any provisions of the Environmental Protection Act or the Water Act. It is also stated in the petition that the complaint is relating to the period of time after the petitioner ceased to be Director of the accused no. 1 company. The petitioner is therefore wrongly shown as an accused in the said complaint.