SREENIVASA DISTILLERIES Vs. S R THYAGARAJAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The defendant is the revision petitioner. The plaintiff filed a suit for granting permanent injunction restraining the defendant from letting out noxious fluids into the river, Neev. Pending the suit, the plaintiffs sought a temporary injunction against the defendant. An objection was raised that the suit itself is not maintainable in view of the provisions of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974. This objection was upheld by the trial Court. On appeal, the appellate Court had disagreed with the conclusion of the trial Court and held that the suit and the application are maintainable and the Court has got jurisdiction to examine the application for injunction and consequently remanded the matter for inquiry. Against that order, the present revision is filed.

(2.) I think the interpretation placed by the appellate Court is correct. The objection as to the maintainability of the suit is based upon the provisions of S. 58 of the above Act which reads as under :

(3.) Since it is a new Act, it is necessary to see the object of the Act. The preamble says that the Act is to provide for the prevention and control of water pollution and the maintaining or restoring of wholesomeness of water for the establishment and with a view to carrying out the purpose aforesaid, statutory Boards are established. Sec. 2 defines the Board which means the Central Board or State Board. The word, "occupier" in relation to S.2(d) means the person who has control over the affairs of the factory or the premises and where the said affairs are entrusted to a managing agent, such agent shall be deemed to be the occupier of the factory or the premises; The word, "pollution" was defined under S. 2(e) of the above Act in the following terms :