DALMIA DAIRY INDUSTRIES, BHARATPUR Vs. RAJASTHAN STATE WATER POLLUTION CONTROL AND PREVENTION BOARD, JAIPUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition u/s. 482 Crimial P.C. is directed against me order dated Oct. 16, 1987 whereby the learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 1, Bharatpur confirmed the order of the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bharatpur taking cognizance of the offence u/s. 41 (2) of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as the Act of 1974) against the petitioner company and eight of the officers/Directors/employees. The relevant facts are these

(2.) The petitioner is an industrial unit manufacturing 5 tones of "Ghee" and 70 tones of "skimmed Milk-powder" per day at its factory located at Bharatpur. In the manufacturing process of its products the petitioner allegedly utilises 1000 tons of milk, 125 tons of steam coal and 60 tons of furnace oil per month. The manufacturing process allegedly results in such contamination of water or such alteration of the physical, chemical or biological properties of water or such discharge of sewage or trade effluent or other liquid, gaseous or solid substance into water as may, or is likely to, create a nuisance or render such water harmful or injurious to public health or safety, or to domestic, commercial, industrial, agricultural or other legitimate uses, or to the life and health of animals or plants or of acquit organism which activity amounts to "pollution" within the meaning of the term defined in Sec. 2 of the Act of 1974.

(3.) The non-petitioner is a "state Board" constituted u/s. 4 of the Act of 1974 for prevention and control of water pollution within the territories of the State of Rajasthan. Since in the opinion of the non-petitioner Board the manufacturing activities of the petitioner company created water pollution it filed an application u/s. 33 of the Act of 1974. In the Court of a Magistrate First Class at Bharatpur for restraining the petitioner from causing water pollution, and discharging the effluent in terms of the consent accorded to it by the Board on 20.1.76 u/ss. 25/26 of the Act 1974. The learned Magistrate is stated to have accepted the application of the non-petitioner on 17.12.84 and required the petitioner to act in accordance with the conditions imposed upon it while granting consent u/s. 25/26 aforesaid. However, on an inspection made by the Executive Engineer (Environment), of the non-petitioner-Board on 10.1.85 the petitioner company and its officers/servants were found not to be following the conditions of the consent and acting in a way as caused "pollution". It may be mentioned that vide its order dated 5.1.82 the Board had refused to extend the validity of the consent granted to the petitioner u/s. 25/26 of Act of 1974 and had directed the petitioner to desist from discharging its trade effluent and while doing so the Board had imposed certain specific conditions u/s. 25(4) which conditions and the order of the Magistrate dated 17.12.84 were found to have been not followed and observed by the petitioner at the time of the inspection of the factory by the officer of the Board on 10.1.85. It was under such circumstances that in its 48th meeting held on 15.3.85 the Board resolved that the petitioner-company be prosecuted for violation of the provisions contained in section 33(2) read with Sec. 41 and 47 of the Act of 1974. The member Secretary of the Board in exercise of his powers conferred upon him by the Board in its meeting held on 15.6.82, authorised Sri. M.M. Goel the Environmental Engineer to file a complaint in the competent court against the petitioner company and its officers/servants and to do such other acts as were necessary for successful culmination of the complaint. Shri Goel accordingly filed the requisite complaint against the petitioner company and eight of its Director/Officers/Servants on 2.4.88. The learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offence u/s. 41(2) of the Act of 1974 against the petitioner-company and eight of its Director/Officers/Servants on 10.4.88 and such order of the learned Magistrate was confirmed in revision by the learned Additional Sessions Judge vide his impugned order. Hence this petition.