A. S. BANSAL Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. has been preferred for quashment of proceeding of Cri. Case No. 1266/2017 under Section 15 of the Environment Protection Act, 1986 pending before JMFC, Jabalpur.

(2.) The facts giving rise to this petition are that on behalf of the respondent, before JMFC, Jabalpur, a complaint was filed on 3.10.2017 against the applicant with regard to operating Ms. Bansal Supertek Clinic and Ms. Bansal Hospital, without following the provision of the Environmental Protection Act with regard to Bio-Medical Waste which is punishable under Section 15 of the Act. As the applicant is operating the aforesaid clinic and hospital without getting any authority under the Act after 7.10.2010, without further authorization or informing to close the institute which is violation of Rule 4 and 10 of the Bio-Medical Waste (Management and Handling) Rules, 1998 and the Bio-Medical Management Rules, 2016. On the basis of the aforesaid complaint, the cognizance has been taken by the Magistrate and the trial is going on.

(3.) The aforesaid proceeding has been challenged here on the ground that the applicant took permission from the respondent for Bio-Medical Waste (Management and Handling) Rules, 1998 which was valid till 7.10.2010 but before the expiry date, the applicant closed the clinic and hospital, therefore, there is no need to take, further permission under the aforesaid rules, therefore, the applicant has not violated any rules and committed no violation of the Act. Further submitted that neither in complaint nor in any document, it is disclosed that after 7.10.2010, till filing of the complaint, any officer of the Board inspected the premises to find out that the clinic and hospital were running or not or any biomedical waste was produced. None of the complaint has been made by any person, with regard to collection, transportation, storage or non-disposal of the biomedical wastage, in the premises of the alleged clinic or hospital. The condition of permission till 7.10.2010 which is Annexure 3, filed with the complaint is concerned, the conditions are applicable till the validity period of the authorization, after expiry of the period. No term and condition would survive. On expiry of the period, there was no obligation for the applicant to take prior permission of prescribed authority to closed down the facility, hence there is no violation of Rule 4 and 10 as mentioned earlier, under the circumstances, if the allegations be taken as it is, the applicant cannot be held guilty of the offence punishable under Section 15 of the Act. In the circumstances, the continuation of the proceeding would amount to misuse of the process of court. Hence the proceeding be quashed.