DIPTI JAIN Vs. HARYANA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This judgment shall dispose of afore-mentioned two petitions as they arise out of the same complaint and involve similar questions of facts and law.

(2.) Both the petitions have been preferred under Sec. 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of criminal Complaint No.24/2019 dtd. 11/7/2019 filed under Sec. 43/ 44 for violation of Sec. 24/25 of Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 (for short, 'Water Act') and Ss. 37 for violation of Sec. 21 of Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 (for short, 'AIR Act'), pending before the Court of Sh.Pracheta Singh, Presiding Officer, Special Environment Court, Kurukshetra and also for quashing summoning order dtd. 6/2/2020 qua the petitioners.

(3.) Brief facts leading to the present case are that a partnership Firm M/s Vardhman Spinners (hereinafter referred to as, 'Firm') was engaged in the business of manufacturing and trading of all types of yarns, blankets, loyee, shawls etc. Earlier four partners namely Ajay Jain, Anand Kumar Jain, Raman Jain and Rahul Jain were the partners and later on, three partners except Ajay Kumar Jain left the Firm and in their place, petitioners along with Hemant Jain entered into the above mentioned Firm on 1/4/2011, being partners in place of its earlier partners. Copies of partnership deeds dtd. 4/5/2009 and 1/4/2011 are annexed with the file as Annexures P-1 and P-2, respectively. A unit of the said Firm was established at Barsat Road, Bhainswal, Panipat in 2009 and a show cause notice dtd. 24/7/2018 (Annexure P-5) was issued to the Firm by Regional Officer, Panipat Region, Haryana State Pollution Control Board (hereinafter referred to as, 'Board') with the alleged substantive fact that the said unit of the Firm was visited by the officer of respondent on 19/3/2018 and the said unit was found discharging trade effluent directly on open land and the unit was also found to have established and operated without obtaining prior Consent to Establish (hereinafter referred to as, 'CTE') and Consent to Operate (hereinafter referred to as, 'CTO'). In response thereto, a reply dtd. 30/7/2018 (Annexure P-6) was submitted on behalf of the Firm with the submission that no effluent as well as water had been discharged from the said unit run by the Firm. Another show cause notice dtd. 16/8/2018 (Annexure P-7) was issued by Regional Officer, Panipat Region of the respondent Board, alleging therein that the site was inspected by the Field Officer on 14/8/2018 along with complainant and unit was found engaged in discharge of untreated effluent and no CTE and CTO had been obtained by the unit. Thereafter, the said unit of the Firm was visited by an officer of the Board, who apprised that a complaint had been received against the unit of the Firm and the officer needed signature of any representative of the Firm, in order to send the reply to the complaint against the Firm. Pursuant to that, signatures of Ajay Kumar Jain, one of the partners of the Firm were obtained on some blank proformas on the pretext of mere formality for the inspection. Thereafter, an order of closure dtd. 13/9/2018 (Annexure P-8) was passed, pursuant to which, the said unit of the Firm was sealed on 19/9/2018 (Annexure P-9) and the impugned complaint dtd. 11/7/2019 (Annexure P-3) was filed against the petitioners, wherein the trial court took cognizance on 6/2/2020 against the petitioners and issued the summoning order dtd. 6/2/2020 (Annexure P-4), whereby all the said accused persons have been summoned to face trial under Ss. 24 and 25 read with Ss. 43 and 44 of Water Act and under Sec. 21 read with 37 of the AIR Act.