CR.MA/3561/2008                            1/2                                              ORDER


                     IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

                    CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION No. 3561 of 2008

         =========================================================
                  VASANT DYEING & PRINTING WORKS AND ANR
                                   Versus
                          STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR
         =========================================================

         Appearance :
         MR ZUBIN F BHARDA for Applicants:1-2
         MR KP RAVAL, ADDL.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for Respondent:1
         None for Respondent:2
         =========================================================
                    CORAM : HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE H.N.DEVANI



                                     Date : 22/04/2008

                                           ORAL ORDER

1. Heard Mr.Zubin F.Bharda, learned advocate for the petitioners.

2. The learned advocate has drawn the attention of the Court to the Defaulter's Data Sheet, Annexure-VI at page 49 to the application, to point out that the same refers to an inspection report dated 14th June, 1988. It is submitted that the Air Pollution Control (Amendment) Act, 1987, ('the Act'), came into force from 1st April, 1988. Under the provisions of Section 21(1) of the Act, the unit was required to obtain consent within three months from the date of coming into force of the Act, and in case it had made an application within three months of the coming into force of the Act, the unit was permitted to continue till the application was decided. It is submitted that on the date when the inspection was HC-NIC Page 1 of 2 Created On Wed Aug 16 16:50:24 IST 2017 CR.MA/3561/2008 2/2 ORDER made, the said period of three months had not yet expired, hence, the inspection itself was premature and the sanction based upon such inspection report, was also premature. It is submitted that the aforesaid inspection report and sanction form the basis of the present complaint. Hence, the complaint itself is premature. It is further contended that this Court in the case of M/s.Nicosulf Industries and Exports Pvt.Ltd. And Anr. Vs. State of Gujarat & Anr., 2002 (2) 1580, has held that the Chairman of the Board has no authority to authorize filing of complaint as to sanction prosecution is different from authority to file complaint.

3. Considering the submissions advanced by the learned advocate for the petitioners, NOTICE returnable on 5th May, 2008. By way of ad-interim relief, further proceedings of Criminal Case No.2747 of 1988, pending before the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Surat, are stayed till then.

4. Mr.K.P.Raval, learned Additional Public Prosecutor waives service of Notice on behalf of respondent No.1-State of Gujarat.

(H.N.DEVANI, J.) Amit/-

HC-NIC Page 2 of 2 Created On Wed Aug 16 16:50:24 IST 2017