- (1.) HEARD learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned counsel for the opposite parties.
(2.) BEFORE proceeding further in the matter, the order dated 18.06.2012, needs to be reproduced here-in-below :- Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the prosecution under the Environment Protection Act, 1986 is being challenged on the ground that the prosecution cannot be launched under the provision of the aforesaid Act on a private complaint without fulfilling statutory requirement of the provision as contained in Section 19(2) of the Environment Protection Act, 1986. In this regard, it was further submitted that on a private complaint the prosecution cannot be launched but before lodging the case, notice under the prescribed format under registered cover with A/D is required to be given 60 days before to the authority of the Pollution Control Board and also to other authorities as mentioned in Rule 11(b) of the Environment Protection Rules and within 60 days if the authority of the Board does not choose to file complaint against the person allegedly committed offence under the Environment Protection Act, only that event, the Court should have entertained the complaint petition. Besides that other conditions are also laid down to be fulfilled for private complaint to be entertained. Mr. Prabir Chatterjee, learned counsel submits that he has appeared on behalf of opposite party No.2, but presently, he is not in a position to answer the points raised on behalf of the petitioners and hence, the matter be posted on 2.7.2010, so that he may give reply on the points raised on behalf of the petitioners. As prayed for, let this matter be posted on 2.7.2012. Till then, interim order passed on 8.9.2010, shall continue. Mr. P. Chatterjee, learned counsel appearing for the opposite party No.2 submits that though he has not filed any counter-affidavit, in terms of the order dated 18.06.2012, but he may point it out that though a private complaint has been filed, but the officials of the Board have been cited as witnesses and thereby, it cannot be said that the complainant would be proceeding with the matter, wherein, only the private person would be examined on behalf of the complainant rather official witnesses being cited as witnesses would also be examined as witnesses.
(3.) THE stand which has been taken on behalf of the opposite party never fulfills the requirement as mentioned in Rule 11(b) of the Environment Protection Rule which has been noted under order dated 18.06.2012. Thus, it is evidently clear that complaint has never been lodged by the private complainant after fulfilling the requirements which are there in Rule 11(b) of the Environment Protection Rule and thereby, the complainant at the instance of the private complainant cannot be maintained. Accordingly, the entire criminal proceeding of C.P. Case No.998 of 2007, including the order dated 12.07.2010, whereby and whereunder cognizance has been taken under Section 15 of the Environment Protection Act, 1986 is hereby, quashed.;