- (1.) B. L. Yadav, J. By means of aforesaid, petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution and Criminal Revision under Section 397, Code of Criminal Procedure,. 197. " (for short the Code), impugned order dated 19th April, 1988 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate Bareilly' in proceedings under Section 33 of the Water (Inventions and Control of Pollution) -' -. ct, 1974 (For short the Act) is sought to be quashed.
(2.) FACTUAL matrix of the case is that State of U. P. in exercise of powers conferred under Section 4 of the Act constituted a Beard called U. P. Board for the Prevention arid Control of Water Pollution and to exercise the priers con ferred and Junctions assigned to it under the Act. 12-3-1988 an application for consent of the State B -and, under Section 25 of the Act for the discharge of sewage or trade effluent into a stream or well or sewer was naiad. The Board afire making enquiry and following the procedure prescribed gave consent on 5-y-198-t for a period of one year expiring on 31-12-1984 with certain condi tions. Again on 25-12-1984 another application under Section 25 of the Act was road but that application was rejected on 4-6-1985 on the ground that the conditions imposed with the permission granted earlier were not complied with and the discharge of sewage or trade or trade effluent was found beyond the standard prescribed for the water pollution. Another application for permission was made on which sample of discharge of sewage etc. was taken and it was found that the same was not within the permissible limits of water pollution. Ultimately diligent applications were (filed by the Board under Section 33 (1) of the Act restraining the applicants/petitioners from causing the pollution, as indicated above. These applications have been allowed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate vide impugned order against which present petitions and criminal revision has been filed. Learned counsel for the petitioners/applicant urged that the sewage was discharged on the land and not on the water hence the permission under 25 was accuracy refused, and that the impugned order has been passed by the Chief Judicial Mixture under Section 3. M. 1) of the Act whereat the legislature require Presidency Magistrate or the Magistrate 1st class to pass order under Section 33 (1) of the Act, it was further urged that the expression 'stream or well or sewer or on land' added to Section 25 by Act 44 of 1978 would not apply to the peti tioners-applicant's case where the water has already been polluted, however, it may apply to a case where the water was not polluted.
(3.) LEARNED counsel for the respondents on the other hand urged that application of petitioner was correctly rejected and Chief Judicial Magistrate has cot power to emirate application and piss orders under Section 33 (1) of the Act and the provisions of Section 33 aped to the cases where the water has already been polluted and also where the water has not been already polluted. Heard learned counsel for '. he parties. As regards the jurisdiction of Chief Jadtdas Magistrate to pass orders under Section 13 of the Act, under the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short the Code) it has been provided under Section 12 of the Act that in every district the High Court shall appoint a Judicial Magistrate of the first class to be the Chief Judicial Magistrate as such Chief Judicial Magistrate is a Judicial Magistrate of the first class. Just nomenclature being Chief Judicial Magistrate it cannot be said that Chief Judicial Magistrate, who is also a Judicial Magistrate first class, has got no jurisdiction to entertain the applications and pass orders under Section 33 of the Act.;