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.
-:1:-
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
PRINCIPAL SEAT AT JABALPUR
M.Cr.C.No.10573/2017
M/s Pacific Exports & Others
Vs.
Madhya Pradesh Pollution Control Board
=================
Shri Purushendra Kaurav, learned senior counsel with Shri Tabrez
Sheikh, learned counsel for the applicants.
Shri V.S. Shorti, learned senior counsel with Shri Sourabh Kumar
Soni, learned counsel for the respondent.
==================================
PRESENT:
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RAJEEV KUMAR DUBEY
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VISHNU PRATAP SINGH
CHOUHAN
=================================
ORDER
Reserved on 19/07/2019 Passed on 28/08/2019 Per Rajeev Kumar Dubey, J A learned Single Bench of this Court on 9th April 2019 has referred the following questions for the opinion of the Larger Bench:-
(i) Whether a Class II Officer posted at Regional Office of the M.P. Pollution Control Board is not competent to make complaint with his signatures, in view of the notification dated 18.4.1991 and 4.6.2007 published in M.P. State Gazette dated 20.6.2008 or whether he will be deemed to be authorized Officer of the Board to make a complaint with his signatures, as required under the provisions of section 43 of the Air Act and 49 of the Water Act ?
(ii) If the aforesaid officer is not authorized to make signature on the complaint then whether the aforesaid defect is curable or not ?
Digitally signed by ANURAG SONI Date: 28/08/2019 19:03:33 -:2:-
2. Before setting out the points of reference referred by the learned Single Judge, we may set out the background in which the said questions of law have been referred for the decision of this Court. The applicant No.1 is a firm engaged in the business of mining and minerals. Applicant Nos.2 and 3 are partners. Applicant No.4 is authorized signatory of the firm. The applicant No.1 was granted mining lease for a period of 30 years in respect of Khasra No.412 admeasuring 20.65 hectares and Khasra No.426 admeasuring 6.40 hectares, total 27.05 hectares situated in Patwari Halka No.90 of Tehsil Sihora, District Jabalpur for extraction of Laterite, Iron Ore and Blue Dust. A complaint was filed on behalf of the respondent M.P. Pollution Control Board, (hereinafter referred to as "the Board") by Shri D.V.S. Jatav, Scientist, a Class II Officer of the Board working in the Regional Office of the Board in Jabalpur before the J.M.F.C., Sihora on 13.11.2011, with the allegation of commission of the offences by the applicants. On that complaint learned JMFC took cognizance against the applicants for the offence punishable under Sections 21, 37, 39 of the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 (hereinafter referred as to "the Air Act") and Section 25, 44, 45A of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 (hereafter referred as to "the Water Act") and registered Criminal Case No.800/2011. Being aggrieved from that order, applicants filed M.Cr.C. No.10573/2017 before the High Court. During the hearing of the petition applicants apart from other grounds also raised an objection before the learned Single Judge that the complaint has been filed by D.V.S. Jatav, II Class Officer with his own signature, while the Board vide its resolution dated 04/06/2007 published in M.P. State Gazette dated 20/06/2008 has not given the power to sign the complaint to its Class II Officer, hence the complaint is not tenable.
3. In this regard, learned counsel for the applicants also placed reliance on the judgments passed by learned Single Bench of this Court in M.Cr.C.Nos. 22745/2016 & 22746/2016 (M/s Anand Mining Corporation & Others Vs. M.P. Pollution Control Board decided on 09/05/2018) and Digitally signed by ANURAG SONI Date: 28/08/2019 19:03:33 -:3:- M.Cr.C. Nos.6500/2017 & 6508/2017 (M/s Nirmala Minerals Vs. M.P. Pollution Control Board decided on 09/05/2018). In which learned Single Judge on relying the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court passed in the case of P. Pramila & Others Vs. State of Karnataka & Others, 2015 (17) SCC 651 held that a bare perusal of the notification dated 20/06/2008 leaves no iota of doubt that the respondent Board has conferred the authority of affixing signatures on the complaint on the Chairman, Pollution Control Board, Member Secretary and all the Regional Pollution Control Officers. However, in the year 2007, it was resolved by the respondent Board that in order to ensure swift disposal of cases, the Class II Officers after due approval from the Regional Officer can present the complaint before the competent Court. But, the authority to affix signatures on the complaint has not been conferred upon the Class II Officer of the Board, therefore, it can be safely concluded that according to the Notification dated 20/06/2008, an act of affixing signatures on the complaint and presentation/filing of the same before the Court are two independent, separate and mutually exclusive actions and one action is not inclusive of other and quashed the complaint holding that in view of the aforesaid it is clear that the Court below committed error in taking cognizance of the complaint when the same bears signature of an officer having no authorization to do so. On doubting above findings learned Single Bench of this Court referred the matter on the point as mentioned above.
4. Before considering the aforesaid points, it would be better to examine the appropriate provisions of law and the Resolution of the Board by which the Board authorised its Class II Officers posted in the Regional Offices of the Board to file a complaint.
5. The provisions of Section 43 of the Air Act reads as thus:-
43. Cognizance of Offences. - (1) No Court shall take cognizance of any offence under this Act except on a complaint made by-
(a) a Board or any officer authorised in this behalf by it; or Digitally signed by ANURAG SONI Date: 28/08/2019 19:03:33 -:4:-
(b) any person who has given notice of not less than sixty days, in the manner prescribed, of the alleged offence and of his intention to make a complaint to the Board or officer authorised as aforesaid, and no Court inferior to that of a Metropolitan Magistrate or a Judicial Magistrate of the first class shall try any offence punishable under this Act.
(2) Where a complaint has been made under clause (b) of sub- section (1), the Board shall, on demand by such person, make available the relevant reports in its possession to that person:
Provided that the Board may refuse to make any such report available to such person if the same is, in its opinion, against the public interest.
6. Similarly, the provisions of Section 49 of the Water Act reads as thus:-
49. Cognizance of offences.- (1) No Court shall take cognizance of any offence under this Act except on a complaint made by-
(a) a Board or any officer authorised in this behalf by it; or
(b) any person who has given notice of not less than sixty days, in the manner prescribed, of the alleged offence and of his intention to make a complaint, to the Board or officer authorised as aforesaid, and no court inferior to that of a Metropolitan Magistrate or a Judicial Magistrate of the first class shall try any offence punishable under this Act.
(2) Where a complaint has been made under clause (b) of sub-
section (1), the Board shall, on demand by such person, make available the relevant reports in its possession to that person:
Provided that the Board may refuse to make any such report available to such person if the same is, in its opinion, against the public interest.
(3) Notwithstanding anything contained in section 29 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), it shall be lawful for any Judicial Magistrate of the first class or for any Metropolitan Magistrate to pass a sentence of imprisonment for a term exceeding two years or fine exceeding two thousand rupees on any person convicted of an offence punishable under this Act.
7. The resolution of the Board dated 4 th June, 2007 which was notified in the gazette dated 20/06/2008, reads as thus :-
Digitally signed by ANURAG SONI Date: 28/08/2019 19:03:33 -:5:- Hkksiky] fnukad 2 twu] 2008 dz- 84-& e/; izns'k iznw"k.k fu;a=.k cksMZ dh 68oha cSBd fnukad 18 vizSy] 1991 esa lokZuqefr ls ;g fu.kZ; fy;k x;k fd e/;izns'k esa fLFkr ty rFkk ok;q iznq"k.k dh ifjf/k esa vkus okys lHkh m|ksxksa ds fo:} U;k;ky;hu dk;Zokgh djus ds fy;s vfHk;ksx i+=] vihy djus] fuxjkuh izLrqr djus] dksbZ Hkh okn ;k vihy fuxjkuh cksMZ ds fo:} izLrqr gks] rks cksMZ dh vksj ls v/; {k] lnL;] lfpo] leLr vkapfyd vf/kdkjh] leLr {ksf=; vf/kdkjh vius&vius {ks= ds m|ksxks ds fo:) cksMZ dh vksj ls Lo;a ds gLrk{kj ls izdj.k izLrqr djus ds fy;s vf/kd`r fd;s tkrs gSaA mDr izR;ksftr 'kfDr;ka fnukad 18 vizsy] 1991 ls izHkko'khy gksaxhA blh izdkj jkT; cksMZ dh 112oha cSBd fnukad 4 twu] 2007 e?;izns'k iznw"k.k cksMZ }kjk m|ksxksa ds fo:} U;k;ky; esa U;kf;d izdj.kkaas ds 'kh?kz fujkdj.k gsrq {ksf=; dk;kZy;ksa esa inLFk leLr f}rh; Js.kh vf/kdkfj;ksa dks {ksf=; vf/kdkfj;ksa dh Lohd`fr i'pkr izdj.k U;k;ky; esa nkf[ky djus gsrq vf/kd`r fd;k tkrk gSA mDr izk;ksftr 'kfDr;ka fnukad 4 Tkwu 2007 ls izHkko'khy gksaxhA
8. English translation of the abovementioned gazette notification dated 02/06/2008 is mentioned below:-
"No.84. - It has been decided unanimously in the 68th meeting dated 18th April, 1991 of State Board of Madhya Pradesh Pollution Control Board, Bhopal that the Chairman, Member, Secretary, all the Zonal Officers, all the Regional Officers are authorised to file the case against the industries of their respective areas, by their signature on behalf of the Board, and to file any charge-sheet, Appeal, Revision, for conducting the judicial proceeding against all the industries situated in Madhya Pradesh falling within the ambit of Water and Air Pollution, or in event of any Suit Appeal or Revision filed against the Board.
Above delegated powers shall come into effect from 18th April, 1991.
Similarly, by the 112th Meeting dated 4th June, 2007 of the State Board of Madhya Pradesh Pollution Control Board, all the Class II Officers posted in regional offices after obtaining sanction from the Regional Officers, are authorized to file the cases before the Court for speedy disposal of the cases against the industries in the Courts.
Above delegated powers shall come into effect from 4th June, 2007."
9. Shri Kaurav, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the applicants submitted that the Board earlier vide its resolution dated 18/04/1991 had authorised its Chairman, Member, Secretary, All Zonal Officers and Regional Officers to file complaints under their own signature in the Courts of Law. The second resolution was passed by the Board in continuation of its earlier resolution and at the time of notification of its Digitally signed by ANURAG SONI Date: 28/08/2019 19:03:33 -:6:- second resolution Board had also published its earlier resolution in the Gazette. So both the resolutions will be read conjointly. Although, the Board vide its second resolution dated 04/07/2007 had also authorized Class II Officers of the Board posted in the Regional Offices in the State to file a complaint in a Court of Law after seeking approval of the Regional Officer, but in that resolution Board had not given power to its Class II Officers posted in the Regional Offices to sign the complaint as earlier given by the Board vide resolution dated 18/04/1991 to its Officers whose name is mentioned in that resolution. Only because the numbers of Zonal Officers and Regional Officers were less in the Department to whom earlier the Board had delegated the power to file the complaints by its earlier notification, so for speedy disposal of the cases in the Courts against the industries, Board by its second resolution had delegated the power of filing complaints before the Court to it's Class II Officers also. But, at the same time the Board by its second resolution did not give the power of signing of the complaint to these officers. So they are not competent to file the complaint by their own signature.
10. Learned counsel further submitted that in the first resolution the Board apart from filing complaint also authorised its officers whose name was mentioned in that resolution to sign the complaint, while by the second resolution the Board had not authorised their officers to sign the complaint, but only to file the complaint. So the learned Single Judge in M.Cr.C.Nos. 22745/2016 & 22746/2016 (M/s Anand Mining Corporation & Others Vs. M.P. Pollution Control Board decided on 09/05/2018) and M.Cr.C. Nos.6500/2017 & 6508/2017 (M/s Nirmala Minerals Vs. M.P. Pollution Control Board decided on 09/05/2018) has rightly held that the complaint was not tenable because it was not filed with the sign of the officers mentioned in the first resolution dated 18/04/1991 and filed by the Class II Officer of the Board under his sign who was not authorized to sign the complaint.
Digitally signed by ANURAG SONI Date: 28/08/2019 19:03:33 -:7:-
11. He further submitted that even the Board did not file any petition against the orders passed by the learned Single Judge in the above- mentioned cases, which shows that the Board is satisfied from the interpretation and findings as laid down by the learned Single Judge in the above-mentioned petitions. Even learned Single Judge who referred the matter in its order, held that the learned Bench has not considered whether the defect of filing the complaint by the Class II officers under his signature is curable or not, which shows that referral Judge agreed with the view earlier taken by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in the abovementioned petitions that the Class II Officers are not competent to file the complaint on his signature. So, in the instant reference, point for consideration is only that whether the defect where a complaint has been filed by a person under his signature not authorized to sign the complaint, is curable or not ?
12. In this regard learned counsel also placed reliance on the judgment passed by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Gurudevdatta Vksss Maryadit & Others Vs. State of Maharashtra & Others, (2001) 4 SCC 534, Nathi Devi Vs. Radha Devi Gupta, (2005) 2 SCC 271 and P. Pramila & Others Vs. State of Karnataka & Another, 2015 (17) SCC 651.
13. Per contra, Shri Shorti, learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of respondent/Pollution Control Board submitted that when the words of a statute are clear, plain or unambiguous, they are reasonably susceptible to only one meaning, the Courts are bound to give effect to that meaning irrespective of consequences. In this regard learned counsel quote on Page 55 of Principles of Statutory Interpretation (14th Edition) written by Justice G.P. Singh.
14. He further submitted that the term "Authorise" has been defined in Black's Law Dictionary (6th Edition) which reads as under :-
"Authorise. To empower, to give right to act. To endow with authority or effective legal power, warrant or right. To permit a thing to be done in the future. It has a mandatory effect or meaning implying a direction to act. "Authorised" is sometimes construed as equivalent to "permitted" or "directed" or similar mandatory Digitally signed by ANURAG SONI Date: 28/08/2019 19:03:33 -:8:- language. Possessed of authority, that is, possessed of authority, that is possessed of legal or rightful power. Therefore, once a person is authorised to file a complaint under Section 43 of the Air Act and Section 49 of the Water Act, he is competent to file it. It is his responsibility to see that complaint is filed in accordance with law. The authorisation is general and not specific and, therefore, the filing of the complaint by the Scientist, a Class II Officer of the Board, under his own signatures is legal and valid.
15. Section 43 of the Air Act and Section 49 of the Water Act gives power to the Board to authorise its officers for filing complaints. So, the act of authorisation will be interpreted by the provisions of Section 43 of the Air Act and Section 49 of the Water Act. In both the aforesaid Sections, it is not mentioned that the Board authorises one person to sign the complaint and another to file the complaint. When the Board by its second resolution authorised Class II Officer to file the complaint, then it implicitly means that the Board gave all the powers to enable him to file the complaint, which includes signing of the complaint.
16. In this regard learned counsel placed reliance on a judgment passed Division Bench of this Court in the case of Rairu Distilleries Ltd. Vs. M.P. Pollution Control Board, (2005) 4 MPLJ 91 wherein Division Bench upholding validity of the Resolution, dated 18/04/1991 held :
"Once the resolution is passed, the question is whether by such resolution, powers can be conferred. Section 49 of the Act is very clear. It provides that complaint can be filed by the Board or a person or officer authorised by it. Authorisation can be general or specific. Board has passed a resolution and issued general authorisation to its officers to file a complaint on its behalf. Since Regional Officers have been authorised by the Board to file the complaint on behalf of the Board, complaint filed before the Trial Court is maintainable. Prayer of the petitioners to quash the complaint has no force."
17. Further reliance is placed on a judgment passed by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Gujrat Pollution Control Board Vs. Nicosulf Industries & Exports (P) Ltd, (2009) 2 SCC 171 wherein Hon'ble Apex Court has held as under :-
Digitally signed by ANURAG SONI Date: 28/08/2019 19:03:33 -:9:- "Provisions of Section 49 of the require the State Board to file a complaint or to authorize any of its officers to file the complaint. The view of the High Court that the power to sanction a complaint is distinct from the power to authorise the complaint is not sustainable.The grant of sanction to file a complaint would be in law an authorisation to file the complaint."
18. Learned counsel further submitted that in the instant case also the Scientist, a Class II Officer of the Board filed the complaint against M/s Pacific Exports Ltd. He was authorised by the Board under resolution dated 04/06/2007 to file the complaint. The said officer after getting the approval of the Regional Officer filed the complaint in the Court. So, the Court has rightly taken cognizance of the matter. Learned Single Judge in M.Cr.C.Nos. 22745/2016 & 22746/2016 (M/s Anand Mining Corporation & Others Vs. M.P. Pollution Control Board decided on 09/05/2018) and M.Cr.C. Nos.6500/2017 & 6508/2017 (M/s Nirmala Minerals Vs. M.P. Pollution Control Board decided on 09/05/2018) committed mistake in holding that the Act of affixing signatures on the complaint and filing of the same before the Court are "two independent, separate and mutually exclusive actions and one is not inclusive of the order" and that authority to affix signatures on the complaint had not been conferred upon Class II Officers of the Board. When the Board authorised Class II Officer to file the complaint, it meant they also had the power to sign the complaint.
19. This Court has gone through the record and arguments put forth by the learned counsel of the parties. Learned senior counsel Shri Shroti appeared on behalf of the Board has seriously contested the instant petition. Learned Single Judge on doubting the correctness of the judgement passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in M.Cr.C.Nos. 22745/2016 & 22746/2016 (M/s Anand Mining Corporation & Others Vs. M.P. Pollution Control Board decided on 09/05/2018) and M.Cr.C. Nos.6500/2017 & 6508/2017 (M/s Nirmala Minerals Vs. M.P. Pollution Control Board decided on 09/05/2018) has referred the matter which shows neither the learned Single Judge who referred the matter, nor the Digitally signed by ANURAG SONI Date: 28/08/2019 19:03:33 -:10:- Board agreed with the view earlier taken by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in M.Cr.C. No. 22745/2016, M.Cr.C. No. 22746/2016, M.Cr.C. No. 6500/2017 and M.Cr.C. No. 6508/2017. So the contention of learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of applicants that the learned Single Judge who has made this reference, as well as the Board, are satisfied from the interpretation and findings as laid down by the learned Single Judge in the abovementioned petitions has no force.
20. A bare perusal of Section 43 of the Air Act and Section 49 of the Water Act reveals that no Court shall take cognizance except on a complaint made by a Board or any officer authorised in this behalf or any person who is given a prior notice of not less than 60 days in the manner prescribed of his intention to make a complaint to the Board or officer authorised as aforesaid. If the complaint is lodged by the State Pollution Control Board itself, there is no need to take any authorisation from anybody. However, where complainant filed by the Chairman or the Member, Secretary or any other officer of the Board, authorisation of the Board is necessary. Board may by general or special order, delegate the power to the Chairman or the Member, Secretary or any other officer of the Board.
21. It is apparent from the abovementioned notifications that Board by its earlier resolution dated 18th April 1991 authorised its Chairman, Member, Secretary, all the Zonal Officers, all the Regional Officers to file the complaint under "the Water Act" & "the Air Act". Thereafter, by second resolution dated 4th June 2007 the Board in addition to its earlier authorization, also authorised it's all Class II Officers posted in Regional Offices to file the complaint on behalf of the Board for speedy disposal of the cases. Difference between the above two resolutions of the Board is that in the first resolution Board gave absolute power to file the complaint to Chairman, Member, Secretary, all the Zonal Officers, all the Regional Officers, while by the second resolution the Board authorized its Class II Officers posted in Regional Offices to file the complaint with the rider that Digitally signed by ANURAG SONI Date: 28/08/2019 19:03:33 -:11:- they would do so only after obtaining the sanction from the Regional Officers. Secondly, in the second resolution the phrase "by their signature" is missing. So it only needs to be seen whether the missing phrase "by their signature" has any effect.
22. The facts of the case P. Pramila & Others Vs. State of Karnataka & Another (supra) relied on by the learned counsel of the applicants do not match with the present case. In that case Board authorised the Chairman of the Board to file complaint and said Chairman of the Board further delegated that power to another officer, while in this case, the power of filing complaint has not been sub delegated by the Chairman of the Board to any other officer of the Board. Instead, Board itself authorised Class II Officer to file a complaint by its resolution dated 20/06/2008. So that judgment does not assist applicants.
23. Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Gurudevdatta Vksss Maryadit & Others Vs. State of Maharashtra & Others, (Supra) relied upon by the learned senior counsel of the applicants held "the golden rule is that the words of a statute must prima facie be given their ordinary meaning. It is yet another rule of construction that when the words of the statute are clear, plain an unambiguous, then the Courts are bound to give effect to that meaning, irrespective of the consequences."
24. Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Nathi Devi Vs. Radha Devi Gupta, (Supra) also held that "a Court should be made to give effect to each and every word used by the Legislature. The Courts always presume that the Legislature inserted every part thereof for a purpose and the legislative intention is that every part of the statute should have effect. A construction which attributes redundancy to the legislature will not be accepted except for compelling reasons such as obvious drafting errors."
25. But these Judgments also do not assist the applicants much because these judgments are on the point that how the provisions of the Act shall be interpreted. While in the instant case the only resolution of the Board has to be interpreted. That resolution has not been passed by the Legislature, Digitally signed by ANURAG SONI Date: 28/08/2019 19:03:33 -:12:- but by the Board in the exercise of the power given by the Legislature through provisions of the Section 43 of the Air Act and Section 49 of the Water Act. So said resolution will be interpreted in the light of the provisions of Section 43 of the Air Act and Section 49 of the Water Act. In both the Sections it is only mentioned that under the Air Act and the Water Act complaint can be made by the Board or any officer authorised in this behalf by it.
26. According to Black's Law Dictionary, 9 th Edition the word "Authority" means the right or permission to act legally on another's behalf, the power of one person to affect another's legal relation by acts done in accordance with the other's manifestations of assent, the power delegated by a principal to an agent and the word "Authorised" means to give legal authority.
27. A copy of the complaint is annexed by the applicants as Annexure A/5 to the petition, perusal of which shows that the complainant is the Board of course through its Class II Officer. In the very first paragraph of the complaint, it is specifically stated that the complainant is the State Board. If the complainant is the Board, it is the Board, who has filed the complaint through its Class II Officer. It is not that Shri DVS Jatav, Class II Officer of the Board has filed the complaint. Undisputedly, the Board is not a natural person. The Board is a legal entity. Therefore, its resolutions are to be acted upon by some officers of the Board representing it. So, where Board authorised it's Class II Scientist officer to file the complaint, it is only him who shall sign the complaint.
28. If we put it differently, had the Board not mentioned in its first resolution that the Chairman, Member, Secretary, all the Zonal Officers, all the Regional Officers would be able to sign the complaint and it was only mentioned as "they are authorised to file the complaint on behalf of the Board" as mentioned in the second resolution, couldn't the Chairman, Member, Secretary, all the Zonal Officers, all the Regional Officers file the complaint under their signature in such a situation? The answer is clear that they could file the complaint by their own signature without the mention of Digitally signed by ANURAG SONI Date: 28/08/2019 19:03:33 -:13:- the phrase "by their signature" in the previous resolution dated 18/04/1991. Because, the Board is a legal person, its function will be only through the person who has been authorized to act by it. Where the Board authorised a person to file the complaint on its behalf such authorisation included that he could present a complaint under his signature. Because according to the provisions of Section 43 of the Air Act and Section 49 of the Water Act, only authorization is needed. Which shows that the phrase "by their signature" in the first resolution of the Board, is superfluous. So, in the absence of the phrase "by their signature" in the second resolution it can not be said that the Class II Officers of the Board posted in the Regional Offices are not competent to file the complaint under their signature. In the authorisation "all the Class II Officers posted in regional offices after obtaining sanction from the Regional Officers, are authorized to file the cases before the Court for speedy disposal of the cases against the industries in the Courts" the act of the signing of the complaint is implicit.
29. Proper implementation and enforcement of anti-pollution laws, is utmost important to avoid ecological degradation and its adverse effects. Apex Court in the case of Subhash Kumar v. State of Bihar, (1991) 1 SCC 598 held "right to pollution free water and air for full enjoyment of life is covered by Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Under the Air Act and Water Act legislature apart from board also gives power to file complaint to every citizen of the country." According to the provisions of Section 43 of the AIR Act & Section 49 of the Water Act the citizen can also approach the Court of law after giving 60 days notice to Board. In such a situation where even an ordinary citizen also has the power to file the complaint under the Air Act and Water Act, in the absence of any specific direction, which prevents the Class II Officers posted in regional offices to sign the complaint, an interpretation considering a Class II Officer posted in regional office already having obtained sanction from the Regional Officer and also authorised by the Board by its resolution to file the complaint, not competent to sign the complaint is about to defeat the very object sought to be achieved by these Acts.
Digitally signed by ANURAG SONI Date: 28/08/2019 19:03:33 -:14:-
30. In the considered opinion of this Court learned Single Judge in the case of M/s Anand Mining Corporation & Others Vs. M.P. Pollution Control Board (M.Cr.C.Nos. 22745/2016 & 22746/2016 decided on 09/05/2018) and in the case of M/s Nirmala Minerals Vs. M.P. Pollution Control Board (M.Cr.C. Nos.6500/2017 & 6508/2017 decided on 09/05/2018) committed mistake in holding that the Act of affixing signatures on the complaint and filing of the same before the Court are "two independent, separate and mutually exclusive actions and the authority to affix signatures on the complaint had not been conferred upon Class II Officers of the Board and so they were not competent to file the complaint under their signature.
31. Consequently, we hold that the judgments passed in the case of M/s Anand Mining Corporation & Others Vs. M.P. Pollution Control Board (M.Cr.C.Nos. 22745/2016 & 22746/2016 decided on 09/05/2018) and in the case of M/s Nirmala Minerals Vs. M.P. Pollution Control Board (M.Cr.C. Nos.6500/2017 & 6508/2017 decided on 09/05/2018) do not lay down the correct law regarding competency of filing complaint by Class II Officer under his signature and are thus, overruled on the point. We answered the first question of reference that the Class II Officers of the Board are competent to file the complaint under his signature after obtaining sanction from the Regional Officers in the light of resolution of the Board dated 04 th June, 2007 which was notified in the gazette dated 20/06/2008.
32. There is no need to answer the second question of reference, which has become only academic interest in the light of the answer to the first question of the reference and the decision of that is no longer required for the just decision of this petition.
33. Matter be placed before learned Single Judge for further consideration.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) (Vishnu Pratap Singh Chouhan)
JUDGE JUDGE
as/-
Digitally signed by ANURAG SONI
Date: 28/08/2019 19:03:33