Main Search Premium Members Advanced Search Disclaimer
Cites 5 docs
THE AIR (PREVENTION AND CONTROL OF POLLUTION) ACT, 1981
Section 21 in THE AIR (PREVENTION AND CONTROL OF POLLUTION) ACT, 1981
Section 22 in THE AIR (PREVENTION AND CONTROL OF POLLUTION) ACT, 1981
Section 25 in The Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974
Section 26 in The Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974

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
Md Nadim Alam vs The State Of Jharkhand And Anr on 16 June, 2016
           IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
           Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No. 1776 of 2014
                                   ---

           Md. Nadim Alam son of Md. Shamim Akhtar, resident
           of H. B. Road, Tharpakhna, PO, GPO & PS Lalpur,
           District Ranchi                   ...     ...     Petitioner
                                   Versus
           1.The State of Jharkhand
           2.Regional Manager, Jharkhand State Pollution Control
            Board, Regional Office, Tupudana, PO & PS Tupudana,
            District Ranchi                    ...    ...     Opposite Parties
                                    ---
           CORAM        : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY
                                   ---
           For the Petitioner           : Mr. Avishek Prasad, Advocate
           For the Opposite Party No. 1 : A.P.P.
           For the Opposite Party No. 2 : Mr. Rahul Saboo, Advocate

                                      ---

7/16.06.2016

Heard Mr. Avishek Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Rahul Saboo, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 and learned A.P.P. for the State.

The petitioner in this application has prayed for quashing the entire criminal proceeding in connection with C/III 311 of 2011 including the order dated 12.12.2011 passed by the learned A.C.J.M., Ranchi whereby and whereunder cognizance has been taken for the offence punishable under Sections 25 & 26 of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act and Section 21 & 22 of the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981.

It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that he has falsely been implicated in the present case. Learned counsel submits that the petitioner had already applied for 'no objection certificate' from the Jharkhand State Pollution Control Board and it is totally wrong on the part of the Board to contend that the petitioner is running his crusher machine without obtaining NOC from the Pollution Board. He further submitted that the crusher machine was not running in the notified forest area and in fact the opposite party no. 2 in its reply has also not stated in details with respect to the said contention of the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the entire criminal proceeding deserves to be quashed and set aside.

Mr. Rahul Saboo, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 relied upon the counter affidavit filed by him and submitted that -2- necessary formalities have been completed prior to lodging the case against the petitioner. He further submitted that on 3 occasions, the plant of the petitioner was inspected and the same were found in running condition. He also submitted that the application submitted by the petitioner for grant of NOC has subsequently been rejected and the petitioner was directed to close down the operation of the plant and ultimately the complaint case was instituted. Learned counsel therefore submits that there has been an apparent violation of the provision of the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act and Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act and in such circumstances no interference is necessitated in the order taking cognizance dated 12.12.2011.

It is an admitted fact that the petitioner was running M/s. King Stone Works by operating crusher machine without consent to operate from the Jharkhand State Pollution Control Board. It further appears that on several occasions, inspection was made of the premises of the petitioner and the plant was found in a running condition. Such act on the part of the petitioner is clearly violative of the provisions of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act and Section 21 & 22 of the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981. In such circumstances, therefore, no illegality has been committed by the learned A.C.J.M., Ranchi while passing the impugned order dated 12.12.2011.

Accordingly, having found no merit in this application, the same is hereby rejected.

(Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J) R. Shekhar Cp 3