GUJARAT POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD Vs. NICOSULF INDUSTRIES AND EXPORT PVT LTD
LAWS(SC)-2008-12-180
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (FROM: GUJARAT)
Decided on December 04,2008

GUJARAT POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD Appellant
VERSUS
NICOSULF INDUSTRIES AND EXPORT PVT. LTD. Respondents

JUDGEMENT

Arijit Pasayat, J. - (1.) Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of a learned Single Judge of the Gujarat High Court allowing the Revision Petition filed by the respondents 1 and 2.
(2.) A complaint under Sections 24, 25, 43, 44 and 47 of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 (in short the Rs. Act) was filed by the Assistant Environmental Engineer on behalf of the Gujarat Pollution Control Board (in short the Rs. Board) against a private limited company i.e. M/s Nicosulf Industries & Exports Private Limited-respondent No. 1 and its co-directors Kishanbhai M. Narsinh, Mihirbhai G. Virji and Dushyant P. Lejawala alleging inter-alia that the accused Nos. 2, 3 and 4 are producing Nicotine Sulphate in their factory and using Tobacco Stuff, Lime, Kerosene and Sulphuric Acid as raw-materials, and during the course of the process of production they are discharging 10,800 litres of polluted water every day. Under Sections 24 and 25 of the Act, every industry is compulsorily required to obtain prior permission or approval of the Board for discharging its polluted water used by it either within or outside the industry as per Section 25(i) of the Act. Permission was granted by imposing certain conditions to the accused persons. If the industry commits breach of conditions, complaint can be filed, which in the instant case was filed alleging that there was breach of condition No. 4, as a result of which, under condition No. 7, the consent order automatically lapsed. The accused Nos. 2, 3 and 4 were said to be responsible officers managing day-to-day affairs of the company. On 22-6-1989, a sample of polluted water was collected from the industry. It was analysed by the Laboratory of the Board, which reported that the effluent did not conform to the prescribed standards. The report of the analyst was given on 8-7-1989. Thereafter, show-cause notice was issued to the accused persons. A complaint was accordingly filed.
(3.) The learned Magistrate convicted all the four accused under Sections 24, 25, 43 and 44 of the Act.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.