AMRIT BANASPATI COMPANY LTD Vs. U P POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
LAWS(ALL)-1986-3-16
HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Decided on March 20,1986

AMRIT BANASPATI COMPANY LTD. GHAZIABAD Appellant
VERSUS
U. P. POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD LUCKNOW Respondents

JUDGEMENT

B.D.Agrawal, J. - (1.) M/s. Amrit Banaspati Company Limited is a Company registered under the Companies Act engaged in the manufacture of Banaspati oil at Ghaziabad. The trade effluent is discharged by the Company through Darsna drain/sewer. On March 27, 1981, the Company applied for the consent to the State of U. P. for the Prevention and Control and Water Pollution under section 26 read with section 25 of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'). Inspection was made and the report submitted on June 8, 1981. On July 7, 1981, the Board gave consent valid for period of one year commencing from April 1, 1981. This was communicated to the Company under the covering letter dated July 9, 1981, which specified :- "1. A time bound programme for treating the trade/domestic effluent for the installation of the complete treatment unit may please be submitted to this Board within a month from the date of receipt of this letter. The treatment works have to be placed in such a manner so that they are completed in all respect by March, 1982 as stipulated under consent condition No. 11 of the enclosed consent order.
(2.) PLEASE submit the composition details of the trade/domestic effluents for all these parameters which have been given in item No. 22 of the consent seeking application. Pending to the clarifications of the above replies, the consent order is hereby enclosed. The replies of the above paras may please be submitted within one month from the date of receipt of this letter". 2. Letter dated September 7, 1981, was issued by the Technical Officer, Board, to the Company insisting upon the due compliance to the conditions incorporated in the consent order and asking for a detailed report showing the progress made in this respect within the 10th day of each month. On April 1, 1982, it appears, the Company applied to the Board seeking consent to the discharge of the effluent; the application was received on April 7, 1982, and the consent asked for was declined by order passed on August 2, 1982. On March 7, 1983, the Regional Officer, Board, wrote to the Company complaining that the requisite steps to stop the pollution had not been taken and that a time bound programme must be submitted r,n this respect and this was followed by the complaint filed on December 6, 1983,, in the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ghaziabad. The Chief Judicial Magistrate recorded the statement of Surya Nath Pandey, Legal Assistant, Board, and passed the impugned order thereafter on December 14, 1983, whereunder the accused have been summoned for offence under section 44 of the Act. Learned counsel for the applicants has raised the following contentions directed against the impugned order :- I- the allegations contained in the complaint or the material placed before the court below do not disclose the required ingredients to proceed under section 47 read with section 44 of the Act ; II- there is no previous sanction of the Board as contemplated under section 49 (1) of the Act to call for cognizance of the offence being taken against the accused applicants ; III- the application for consent made by the Company is not disposed of yet by the Board or an officer duly authorised in this behalf within the meaning of Section 12 (2) of the Act and hence no offence can be said to be committed; and IV- the provisions introduced under the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) (Amendment) Act, 1978 (Central Act 47 of 1978) are inapplicable in relation to this State.
(3.) I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. Taking up the contention No. I first it will be noticed that the Act has, for its object, provision for the prevention and control of water pollution and the maintaining or restoring of wholesomeness of water. The State Board is constituted under section 4. Section 25 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 Dew or altered outlet for the discharge of sewage or trade effluent into a stream or well. The provision made in Section 26 is for the existing discharge of sewage of trade effluent and for consent in that connection. The requirement for consent of the Board laid down in Section 25 is attracted as well to the case of existing discharge of sewage or trade effluent provided for under section 26. Contravention of the provisions of Sections 25 or 26 is punishable under section 44 with imprisonment for a term not less than six months but which may extend to six years and with fine. Section 49 (1) lays down that no Court shall take cognizance of any offence under the Act except on a complaint made by, or with previous sanction in writing of the State Board, and no court inferior to that of a Magistrate of the first class shall try any offence punishable under the Act. Section 47, which is material, reads as follows :- 47. Offences by companies.-"(1) Where an offence under this Act has been committed by a company, every person who at the time the offence was committed was incharge of, and was responsible to the company for the conduct of, the business of the company, as well as the company, shall be deemed to be guilty of the offence and shall be liable to be proceeded against and punished accordingly : Provided that nothing contained in this sub-section shall render any such person liable to any punishment provided in this Act if he proves that the offence w as committed without his knowledge or that he exercised all due diligence to prevent the commission of such offense. (2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1) where an offence under this Act has been committed by a company and it is proved that the offence has been committed with the consent or connivance of, or is attributable to any neglect on the part of, any director, manager, secretary or other officer of the company, such director, manager, secretary or other officer shall also be deemed to be guilty of that offence and shall be liable to be proceeded against and punished accordingly.";


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