Main Search Premium Members Advanced Search Disclaimer
Cites 6 docs - [View All]
THE AIR (PREVENTION AND CONTROL OF POLLUTION) ACT, 1981
Section 37 in THE AIR (PREVENTION AND CONTROL OF POLLUTION) ACT, 1981
Section 38 in The Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974
Section 482 in The Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973
Section 44 in The Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974

advertisement
User Queries
advertisement

Try out our Premium Member services: Virtual Legal Assistant, Query Alert Service and an ad-free experience. Free for one month and pay only if you like it.

Jharkhand High Court
Deepak Kumar Tebriwal vs The State Of Jharkhand And Anr on 3 December, 2014
              IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI.
                              Cr. M. P. No. 2602 of 2014
                                            ...
              Deepak Kumar Tebriwal                        ...      ...     Petitioner
                                    -V e r s u s-
              The State of Jharkhand & Another             ...      Opposite Parties.
                                            ...
CORAM: - HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.P. BHATT.
                                            ...
              For the Petitioner            : - Mr. Shashi Kumar Verma, Advocate.
              For the State                 : - A.P.P.
                                            ...
04/03.12.2014

The present application is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing the order taking cognizance dated 24.03.2014 passed in O.C.R. Case No. 37 of 2014 by the learned C.J.M., Pakur, whereby cognizance of the offence under Section 37 of the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 and Sections 38 and 44 of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 has been taken against the petitioner. The petitioner further prays for quashing the entire criminal proceedings of the case, so far as the petitioner is concerned, which is pending in the court of the learned C.J.M., Pakur.

The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that a complaint case has been filed against five accused persons and the petitioner is shown as accused no. 4, therein. It is submitted that as per the complaint case, the accused persons have established a crushing plant. It is further submitted that although the petitioner is having storage but, he is not running any crushing plant and only making use of the place for storage. In this context, the learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to Annexure-2, to show that the petitioner has been given license by the Assistant Mining Officer, Pakur vide License No. 46 of 2011, dated 17th February, 2011, having validity till 31st December, 2011. By referring Annexure-4, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that it has been renewed from time to time. It is further submitted that the provision with regard to the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 as well as Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 does not arise in the case of the petitioner. However, a complaint has been filed for the alleged offence, as punishable under Section 37 of the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 as well as under Section 24 of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974. It is further submitted that as per the allegations made in the complaint in paragraph 4, none of the accused persons had legally obtained 'No Objection Certificate' from the Jharkhand State Pollution Control Board and thus they are operating their units illegally in violation of the provisions as laid down under the Air and Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act. It is also alleged in paragraph 5 of the complaint that the accused persons have not obtained previous consent from the Board to establish their units. In this context, by referring Annexure-3, it is submitted that an application for obtaining previous consent was filed on 16th August, 2011 (Annexure-3) but the previous consent has not been given by the Board till date and for that the petitioner cannot be made liable.

The learned A.P.P. for the State submitted that since the present case has arisen out of a complaint case, notice may be issued upon the Opposite Party No. 2 Regard being had to the aforesaid submissions, let urgent notice be issued upon the Opposite Party No. 2 both by Registered Post with A/D as well as by ordinary process for which requisites etc. must be filed on or before 10th December, 2014.

Notice is made returnable on 14th January, 2015.

Put up this case on 14th January, 2015.

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, till the next date i.e., 14th January, 2015, no coercive steps be taken against the petitioner in connection with O.C.R. Case No. 37 of 2014, presently pending in the court of the learned C.J.M., Pakur.

Let this order be communicated through FAX at the cost of the petitioner.

(P.P. Bhatt, J.) APK