M.Wahajuddin - (1.) THESE are two connected petitions under Section 482, CrPC, arising out of the same criminal proceedings. The Misc. Case no. 8130 of 1982 has been filed by some Directors and the Secretary of Rajesh Paper Mills Ltd., Shikohabad. This application has been brought with prayer that further proceedings in complaint case no. 995 of 1981, pending in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mainpuri, be quashed. It would appear that the complaint has been filed by the Secretary of the U. P. Water Pollution Prevention and Control Board, Nirala Nagar, Lucknow, against the six applicants in Misc. case no. 8130 of 1982, and two others, namely, the Company M/s. Rajesh Paper Mills Ltd. and Sri R.C. Misra, the Manager of the Company concerned under Sections 42 (1) and 44 of the aforesaid Act, namely. Act no. 6 of 1974 (hereinafter mentioned as Act 6 of 1974). The facts leading to the present proceedings may be briefly laid down.
(2.) M/s. Rajesh Paper Mills started a Paper Mill at Shikohabad. It obtained sanction from the Witter Pollution Prevention and Control Board. That sanction is annexed as Annexure CA 1 to the counter affidavit. It is dated 20-12-1980 and in response to letter dated 15-8-80 of Rajesh Paper Mills Ltd. seeking sanction, giving reference to the contents of the application of the Paper Mills it is mentioned that the Mill informed that (1) the factory is likely to be commissioned by April 1981 (2) the entire work of completion and commissioning of effluent treatment plant will be completed by March 1981 and (3) the undertaking that the production in the Paper Mill will be started only after completion and commissioning of the complete effluent treatment plant. Thereafter information and compliance is sought by the Board and it is then stated that subject to such compliance of the conditions annexed to the enclosed form, consent is given to discharge treated effluents from the date of commissioning of complete effluent treatment plant. It was also mentioned that if the Mill starts production without making the aforesaid arrangements and compliance of the conditiors of consent, it will amount to breach of the provisions of the Act, namely, Act 6 of 1974 punishable under Section 44 of the Act. There will be also liability under Section 43 of the Act. The provisions were quoted. Thereafter it was again stressed that suitable arrangement for treatment of trade effluent etc. be made and in case treatment plant is not started, legal actions will be taken. It would appear from the annexure to the supplementary affidavit in Misc. case No. 3755 of 1982 that Sri S. K. Tikmani, one of the Director applicants, furnished certain informations in compliance to the aforesaid directions of the Board to the effect that the Factory is likely to commence normal production by April 1981 and the work of the installation of the treatment plant has already been started and will be completed by March 1981 and a schedule of programme for construction of treatment plant was also given. The Assistant Engineer of the Water Pollution Prevention and Control board wrote to the company that the information is incomplete and vague, and again stressed that the work should be completed by the schedule time:. There are various correspondence exchanged in between and it will be needless to refer to all of them and I may now pass on to the material averments made in the complaint. Paragraph 4 of the complaint states that the opposite party (in the complaint) submitted an application for grant of consent for discharge of the effluent of the Paper Mill, which was incomplete hence details concerning the same, treatment plant and disposal system were required. It is then stated in paragraph 6 of the complaint that such details were submitted. It is, further, stated in paragraph 7 of the complaint that the Secretary of the Company, Sri M. S. Sharma, submitted that the production will be started after installation of the treatment plant seeking provisional consent. Thereafter it is further stated that consent was given subject to the various conditions in the consent order also laying down that the Company shall start its production only after the completion and commissioning of the treatment plant. It was further stated that this has to be done before bringing into use a new outlet for discharge of its highly polluted effluents. The stress is in the complaint that the discharge from the outlet could start only after the completion of the installation of treatment plant:, and this was not done and the Paper Mill started discharging effluent by the outlet made. It is, further, stated that the company premises was got inspected and the Inspecting Officer reported that only it has been dug and there is no treatment plant ami yet the Paper Mill has started production. It is then stated that the opposite side (Company) falsely represented that the treatment plant has been installed. The opposite side also did not comply with the various conditions of the sanctions and the provisions contained in Sections 25 and 26 of Act no 6 of 1974 have been contravened and the opposite side are, therefore, guilt, under Section 42 (1 (g) and Section 44 of the said Act. In this very complaint a prayer was also made that the opposite side be restrained from causing pollution of water by reason of disposal of the matters discharged from their Paper Mill through the cutlet. As many as 13 documents by way of correspondence, the application of the opposite side, assurances, the consent imposing conditions etc. were also annexed with the complaint. Section 25 of the Act provides for restrictions on new outlets and new discharges, laying down that no person shall, without the previous consent of the State Board, bring into use any new or altered outlet for the discharge of sewage or trade effluent into a stream or well. There are other sub-sections regarding enquiries by the Boards so forth so on, alterations of discharge of the effluent and the outlet etc. New discharge, new or altered outlet are also defined in that section. Section 26 provides for existing discharge of sewage or trade effluent and for consent in that connection. In Section 25 also there is a provision for consent by the Board. Sec. 44 of the Act makes any contravention of the provisions of Secs. 25 and 26 of the Act punishable. The pith and substance of the arguments on behalf of the complainant is that a consent was required, which would be brone out by the fact that an application for the same was made and when the conditions were imposed giving the consent and the consent was given on certain undertaking, in particulars that the treatment plant for the effluent will be installed and completed by a certain period and the work would start only after compliance ; and non compliance of the conditions and non-observance of the various undertakings would per se amount to contravention of Sections 25 and 26 of the Act as to be punishable under Section 44 of the Act. It is, further, urged that as for the purpose of obtaining such sanction false statement was made regarding installation of treatment plant and also that the work will start only after the installation of treatment plant; such false state- ment made wilfully in material particulars would fall within section 42 (g) and is punishable. It would be relevant at this stage to also refer to Section 28 of the Act which lays down that any person aggrieved by any order u/Secs. 25 to 27 of the Act can prefer an appeal to such authority as is constituted by the State Government and the decision of the appellate authority would be final.
(3.) IT is noteworthy that considering the importance of the matter of pollution, which may affect the health of public at large, a provision has been made that such appellate authority shall consists of not a single person, but consist of three persons. Section 29 of the Act provides for revision by State Government suo moto as well. IT is noteworthy that, admittedly, the Company or the petitioners did not prefer any appeal under section 28 of the Act. The learned counsel for the applicant urged in this connection that sections 25 and 26 are to be read with Section 2 (e) of the Act defining 'pollution' and also with section 24 making prohibition for use of stream or well for disposal of polluting matters. IT is further urged that there is a standard concerning pollution and unless it is shown that the dischrge from the outlet, i.e., the effluent, is polluted within the meaning of the Act, no offence will be made out. IT is, further urged that in this background the complaint cannot be taken to disclose a prima facie case. I have given my anxious consideration to the matter. If the order of the Board was bad, the applicants had a statutory remedy provided under section 28 of the Act no. 6 of 1974 and could have resort to that. This has been by passed and it may 'weigh when the exercise of inherent powers is invited. When there is a special statute also providing certain remedies and expressly laying down the constitution of the appellate authority, such special statutory provision cannot be by passed, as it would in itself amounts to abuse of legal process, while the inherent powers are to prevent abuse of legal process.;