-1-




IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

     DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF AUGUST 2018

                          BEFORE

 THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JOHN MICHAEL CUNHA

        CRIMINAL PETITION NO.525 OF 2018
BETWEEN:

1.     The South India Paper Mills Limited,
       Having its office and factory at
       ChikkayanaChatra,
       Thandavapura Post,
       Nanjangud Taluk,
       Mysore District-571301,
       Karnataka, India,
       Rep. by Manish Patel,
       Managing Director.

2.     Mr. Manish Patel,
       Aged about 52 years,
       Son of Mr. Mahendrabai Patel,
       Managing Director,
       The South India Paper Mills Limited,
       Having its office and factory at
       ChikkayanaChatra,
       Thandavapura Post,
       Nanjangud Taluk,
       Mysore District-571301,
       Karnataka, India.
                                              ...Petitioners
(By Sri. C.K. Nandakumar, Advocate)

AND:

B.M. Ramu,
Aged about 61 years,
                            -2-




Son of Malegowda,
Residing at No.34,
Swamy Vivekananda Road,
Sharadadevi Nagar,
Mysore District-570023,
Karnataka, India.                             ... Respondent

(By Sri. Sudhir Kumar, Advocate)

      This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of
Cr.P.C. praying to quash the complaint and entire
proceedings in C.C.No.1280/2010(Annexure 'A') on the
file of the Hon'ble Civil Judge (Jr. Dn) and JMFC,
Nanjangud, as against the petitioners.

      This Criminal Petition coming on for Admission
this day, the Court made the following:

                          ORDER

The petitioners have sought to quash the complaint and the entire proceedings in CC No.1280/2010 pending on the file of Hon'ble Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.) and JMFC, Nanjangud for the offences punishable under Sections 43 and 44 of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act and for violation of Sections 24 and 25 of the above Act. -3-

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the respondent and perused the records.

3. The grievance of the petitioners is that in respect of the very same allegations, the Karnataka State Pollution Control Board has taken action against the petitioners herein and had withdrawn the consent for operation of the paper mill run by accused No.1 and pursuant to the said action, the consent was not renewed for the subsequent three years. The petitioners herein challenged the action of the Pollution Control Board before the Karnataka State Appellate Authority at Bengaluru by preferring appeal Nos.11/2009 c/w 12/2009, 24/2009 c/w 25/2009 and 27/2010 c/w 28/2010 and by order dated 06.03.2012, the appeals were allowed and the Order passed by the Pollution Control Board was set-aside and the Board was directed to consider the case of the petitioners for grant of fresh -4- consent to the petitioners - Industries. Accordingly, the consent has been accorded and the petitioners have been running the paper mills in accordance with law by complying with the terms and conditions imposed in the consent order.

4. Learned counsel further submits that the respondent herein was impleaded in the above proceedings and the contentions urged by him with regard to the violation of provisions of Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act were duly considered and negatived. Respondent did not challenge the order passed by the Appellate Court, instead, has approached the Criminal Court by filing the complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C seeking action against the petitioners for the alleged offences under Sections 43 and 44 of Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act. It is submitted that in the said complaint, the very same allegations are made which have been already -5- considered and decided by the Appellate Authority and therefore, initiation of the criminal proceedings against the petitioners is wholly illegal and a sheer abuse of the process of Court.

5. Refuting its contentions, learned counsel for the respondent submits that the Authority concerned has decided the case only with regard to compliance of provisions of the Act, whereas, in the instant case, the respondent has come up with the specific allegations that the petitioners have resorted to violations of the provisions of Sections 24 and 25 of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, allegations made in the complaint squarely attract the ingredients of the said offences and therefore, the investigation and the further action cannot be quashed against the petitioners.

6. Considered the submission and perused the records.

7. A perusal of the order passed by the Karnataka State Appellate Authority at Bengaluru under Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act discloses that the permission granted to the petitioners to operate paper mill was revoked by the Pollution Control Board for the alleged violation of the provisions of the Act. In the said order, it is specifically noted that the respondent herein got himself impleaded in the said appeals raising a grievance that on account of discharge of untreated affluents to the stream, he has been subjected to hardship and irreparable injury.

8. In Paragraph 20 of the said order, it is noted that the members of the Appellate Authority visited the spot and inspected the industry and its surroundings on 05.11.2011. During the inspection by the officers, the General Manager of the industry and the local residents including the respondent herein were present. The observation made at Para 20 reads as follows: -7-

"The impleading applicant who accompanied us during the inspection alleged that the appellant industry is allowing effluents into the Rampura Canal at a number of places without treatment, which causes decease to the human beings and cattle and the yield from the lands has gone down. It is alleged that the industry sells plastic and other waste to local people who burn the waste to get iron and other metals which causes air pollution and they also dump the hot ash everywhere which causes burns to human beings and cattle and they also contaminate the canal water. The complaint was supported by some locals while another set of villages who were also accompanying us denied the allegations made by the complaint and requested us to direct the appellant industry to release more treated water to their lands."

9. Considering the objections raised by the impleading applicant as well as other residents, the Appellate Authority has ultimately held that the petitioners have been carrying on the operations -8- without violating any of the provisions of law. Undisputedly, neither the respondent nor any other residents have preferred any appeal against the said order. As such, the said order has attained finality.

10. A reading of the private complaint indicates that the respondent herein has raised the very same contentions which have been already been considered and decided by the Authority constituted under the Act of 1974. In this complaint, prayer sought for by the respondent is to take cognizance of the offences punishable under Sections 43 and 44 of the Act.

11. The very same subject matter having been already adjudicated and decided by the complainant authority, in my view the continuous of the proceedings against the petitioners would be nothing but an abuse of process of Court. It is not the case of the respondent that the Authorities constituted under the Act have -9- failed to take any action on the complaint lodged by him. The grievance of the respondent having been already addressed by the concerned authorities, it would be a travesty of justice to allow the proceedings to continue any further.

Accordingly, Petition is allowed. The impugned proceedings in PCR No.26/2010, now numbered as CC No.1280/2010 on the file of The Civil Judge (Jr. Dn.) & JMFC, at Nanjangud is hereby quashed.

It is made clear that this order shall not come in the way of the respondent to take recourse any other remedy available under law.

Sd/-

JUDGE GH