LAKSHMI CEMENT Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) - Heard. Perused the record of the learned lower Courts.

(2.) The petitioner-Company filed an application for grant of consent under Section 21 of the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' to the Rajasthan State Water Pollution and Control Board, Jaipur (respondent No. 2), which was rejected vide letter dated 15-5-1984 on the ground that the petitioner Co. had failed to submit the feasibility report and time bound programme for procuring stack monitoring equipments and arrangements of laboratory facilities as also the arrangements to be made at the stack for monitoring failure in submission of the detailed specification of the control equipments. The Chairman, Pollution Control Board subsequently being satisfied that certain measures were taken by the petitioner for having the E.S.P. installed at the Kiln, advised the petitioner to file a fresh application for grant of provisional consent to undertake measures for control of air pollution vide his letter dated 24/08/1984. Thereupon, the petitioner submitted an application dated 11-9-1984 under Section 21 of the Act praying for the provisional consent. The respondent by its letter dated 19-9-1984 informed the petitioner that its earlier application for consent was rejected and the petitioner despite the directions to stop the operation to the kiln till proper consent was obtained from the Board, was still running the kiln, which constituted an offence under Sections 37 and 39 of the Act. The Chairman of the Board also endorsed a copy of the said letter to the Collector and requested him to take administrative action against the petitioner under Section 133, Cr. P. C. for stopping functioning of the kiln on account of public nuisance and the grave danger being caused to the public health. The Collector sent a copy of the said letter to the S.D.M., Mount Abu, who by his order dated 19-11-1984 issued a notice under Section 133, Cr. P. C. to the petitioner and also passed the conditional order for removal of the nuisance.

(3.) The petitioner filed preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the case under Section 133, Cr. P. C. against it on the ground that after coming into force of the Act, the provisions of Chapter X and in particular Section 133, Cr. P. C. automatically stood repealed. The learned S.D.M. vide his order dated 6-10-1986 rejected the preliminary objection filed by the petitioner. Aggrieved by the said order, petitioner filed a revision petition before the learned Sessions Judge, Sirohi, who dismissed the same and directed the S.D.M. to expedite the proceedings. Petitioner has now filed this Misc. Petition under Section 482, Cr. P. C. praying for quashing the proceedings initiated against him under Section 133, Cr. P. C. and for setting aside the conditional order dated 19-11-1984.