T JAYARAM Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) COMMON questions of fact and law arise for consideration in this batch of criminal petitions filed by the accused, who are accused of offences punishable under Section 37 of the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 (in short, the Act). The petitioners/ accused are seeking quashing of private complaints filed by the second respondent/ The A.P. Pollution Control Board (in short, the Board) against them in the Court of Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Palasa, Srikakulam District.

(2.) IT is alleged that the accused are running cashew kernel manufacturing units in Palasa-Kasibugga-Mogilipadu areas of the district by drum roasting process without consent for operation from the Board as required under Section 21/22 of the Act causing severe air pollution to the surrounding area and ill-health to the residents of the area and that the public made several complaints to the Board against pollution caused by the cashew kernel units from drum roasting process and that the Board directed not to carry drum roasting process after 10.12.2005 in the area as per order dated 30.6.2005 of the Joint Chief Environmental Engineer of the Board's Zonal Office, Visakhapatnam and that subsequently, the Zonal Office also issued directions by order dated 14.4.2006 for shifting all the cashew manufacturing units of the area to boiling process and the said order was served on the President of the Palasa Cashew Manufacturer's Association, Palasa in which the accused are members and that in spite of it, the accused were continuously operating the industry in drum roasting process in gross violation of the directions issued under Section 31A of the Act. IT is further alleged that on 8.2.2007, the Joint Chief Environmental Engineer of the Board's Zonal Office at Visakhapatnam issued closure orders under Section 31A of the Act to the accused industries in the interest of environment and general public health in particular and the accused were ordered to stop all the industrial activities with immediate effect from the date of the said order. There is no dispute that the accused preferred appeals against closure orders dated 8.2.2007 before the Appellate Authority at Hyderabad, who dismissed the said appeals by common order dated 28.4.2007. IT is alleged that though the accused are fully aware of the said facts, they have been continuously operating the said industry in gross violation of the closure orders issued under Section 31A of the Act. IT is further alleged that the Board conducted ambient air quality monitoring in he area several times and between 7th to th of February, 2007 and observed that suspended Particulate Matter (SPM) and Respirable Suspended Particulate Matter (RSPM) values are exceeding the standards of the National Ambient Air Quality issued under the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986. IT is further alleged that the accused failed to install neither air pollution control equipment to their units nor shifted to boiling process and thereby causing severe air pollution to the surrounding areas and are causing ill-health to the residents and public. According to the complainant, residential houses are located at a distance of 300 meters from the industries.

(3.) SECTION 37 of the Act prescribing the penalty, reads as follows: "37. Failure to comply with the Provisions of SECTION 21 or SECTION 22 or with the Directions issued under SECTION 31A.-(1) Whoever fails to comply with the provisions of SECTION 21 or SECTION 22 or directions issued under SECTION 31A, shall, in respect of each such failure, be punishable with imprisonment for a terms which shall not be less than one year and six months but which may extend to six years and with fine, and in case the failure continues, with an additional fine which may extend to five thousand rupees for every day during which such failure continues after the conviction for the first such failure. (2) If the failure referred to in sub-section (1) continues beyond a period of one year after the date of conviction, the offender shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than two years but which may extend to seven years and with fine." In the criminal cases, the complainant alleges that the accused are liable for punishment under SECTION 37 of the Act, firstly for failure to comply with SECTION 21/22 of the Act and secondly for failure to close the units in spite of closure orders issued under SECTION 31A of the Act.