R/CR.MA/3561/2008                                             ORDER




                    IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

                      CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION NO. 3561 of 2008
                                              With
                       CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION NO. 3593 of 2012
                                                In
                       CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION NO. 3561 of 2008

         ================================================================
                   VASANT DYEING & PRINTING WORKS & 1....Applicant(s)
                                       Versus
                        STATE OF GUJARAT & 1....Respondent(s)
         ================================================================
         Appearance:
         MR ZUBIN F BHARDA, ADVOCATE for the Applicant(s) No. 1 - 2
         MR SUNIL L MEHTA, ADVOCATE for the Respondent(s) No. 2
         MR VAIBHAV A VYAS, ADVOCATE for the Respondent(s) No. 2
         PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for the Respondent(s) No. 1
         ================================================================

          CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ANANT S. DAVE

                                       Date : 03/05/2017
                                        ORAL ORDER

1. Heard learned advocates for the parties.

2. Shri Zubin Bharda, learned advocate for the applicants would contend that Section 21 (1) of the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 came to be substituted by the Act 47 of 1987 with effect from 1.4.1988, which reads as under:-

"21. Restrictions on use of certain industrial plants.-- [(1) Subject to the provisions of this section, no person shall, without the previous consent of the State Board, establish or operate any industrial plant in an air pollution control area:

Provided that a person operating any industrial plant in any air Page 1 of 3 HC-NIC Page 1 of 3 Created On Wed Aug 16 16:50:29 IST 2017 R/CR.MA/3561/2008 ORDER pollution control area immediately before the commencement of section 9 of the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Amendment Act, 1987 (47 of 1987), for which no consent was necessary prior to such commencement, may continue to do so for a period of three months from such commencement or, if he has made an application for such consent within the said period of three months, till the disposal of such application.]"

3. The complaint refers to inspection of the premises of the petitioner company carried out on 14.6.1988 and the inspection report was also prepared on the same date. The complaint is filed on 03.11.1988, which refers to non- compliance of substituted Section 21 (1). It is further submitted that Rules framed in exercise of powers conferred by Sub-sections (1) and (2) of Section 54 of the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981, in Chapter IV under the heading of 'Prevention and Control of Air Pollution' prescribed under Rule 9 for preferring an application for consent under Sub-section (2) of Section 21. Proviso to above Rule provided that where any person, immediately before the declaration of any area as air pollution control area, operates in such area any industrial plant for the purpose of any industry specified in the Schedule I shall make the application for consent within a period of four months from the date of such declaration of the area.

4. Form-I is prescribed under Rule 9 (1) for preferring application for consent under Section 21 of the Act, 1981 and, therefore, it is submitted that the complaint lacks statutory force and powers invoked by the complainant is contrary to law inasmuch Rule 9 ought to have been amended for bringing period for preferring an application within a period of three months on par with proviso to Sub-section (1) and (2) of Section 21 of the Act.

                                             Page 2 of 3

HC-NIC                                    Page 2 of 3      Created On Wed Aug 16 16:50:29 IST 2017
                     R/CR.MA/3561/2008                                           ORDER

5. As against above, Shri Vaibhav Vyas, learned advocate for respondent no.2 would contend that Act 1981 is in force in the State of Gujarat with effect from 30.3.1981 and Gujarat Pollution Control Board came into existence on 15.10.1974. Rules of 1983 were published vide Notification dated 6.8.1984 and all the Districts of the State of Gujarat have been brought within the purview of Air Pollution Control of the Department. According to Shri Vyas, the petitioners have not preferred any application seeking consent either prior to or after 1.4.1988 and further date of complaint is 3.11.1988, admittedly after completion of three months under Sub-section (1) of Section 21 of the Act. Shri Vyas, however, contends that time limit of four months prescribed under Rule on the contrary will benefit the petitioner, giving one month more than what is prescribed under the Act.

6. Adjourned to 5th May 2017.

(ANANT S.DAVE, J.) *malek Page 3 of 3 HC-NIC Page 3 of 3 Created On Wed Aug 16 16:50:29 IST 2017