The judgment establishes the principle that the jurisdiction of the Magistrate under Section 133 CrPC is impliedly repealed for pollution issues covered by the Water and Air Pollution Acts. It also emphasizes the duty of the State Pollution Control Board to take action without specific directions from the Court.

Headnote:
Pollution - Jurisdiction of Magistrate under Section 133 CrPC - Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 and the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 - [Section 133 CrPC, Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974, Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981]
Fact of the Case:

A complaint was filed regarding pollution caused by liquor factories discharging polluted water into a nearby stream. The Sub-Divisional Magistrate passed an order under Section 133 of the CrPC to close down the factories. The High Court set aside the order, citing implied repeal of Section 133 CrPC by the Water and Air Pollution Acts. The State challenged this decision.
Finding of the Court:

The Supreme Court directed pollution control boards to inspect the factories and found serious pollution violations. It criticized the State Pollution Control Board for failing to discharge its statutory functions and ordered action against defaulting officers. The Court also directed the closure of certain industries found to be non-compliant.
Issues: Jurisdiction of the Magistrate under Section 133 CrPC, implied repeal of Section 133 CrPC by Water and Air Pollution Acts, failure of the State Pollution Control Board to discharge its functions, compliance with pollution control provisions.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that the Magistrate had no jurisdiction to proceed under Section 133 CrPC for pollution issues covered by the Water and Air Pollution Acts. It emphasized the duty of the State Pollution Control Board to take action without specific directions from the Court and ordered closure of non-compliant industries.
Final Decision: The Court directed the State to take action against defaulting officers, ordered closure of non-compliant industries, and mandated submission of a report within six weeks.

Judgement Key Points

Based on the provided legal document, the key points are as follows:

The case concerns pollution caused by industries, specifically liquor factories discharging polluted water into a nearby stream, which posed risks to public health and the environment (!) .
The initial order to close down the factories was issued by a Magistrate under Section 133 of the CrPC, but this order was later set aside by the High Court on the grounds of implied repeal of Section 133 CrPC by the Water and Air Pollution Acts (!) (!) .
The Supreme Court clarified that the jurisdiction of the Magistrate under Section 133 CrPC is impliedly repealed for pollution issues covered by the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974, and the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 (!) .
The Court emphasized the statutory duty of the State Pollution Control Board to inspect industries and enforce pollution control measures without requiring specific directions from the Court (!) (!) .
Despite the Court's directions, the State Pollution Control Board failed to perform its statutory functions for a prolonged period, which was a significant concern highlighted by the Court (!) (!) .
A joint inspection revealed serious violations of pollution standards by several industries, including M/s Kedia Leather and Liquor Pvt. Ltd., which had inadequate effluent treatment facilities and high levels of pollution in their effluent (!) (!) .
The inspection report indicated that the industry was non-compliant with prescribed environmental standards, notably with a very high BOD level in the effluent, and had storage practices that could lead to groundwater pollution (!) .
The Court directed the authorities to identify officers responsible for failing to enforce pollution control laws and to take appropriate disciplinary action (!) .
The Court ordered the immediate closure of the industries found to be non-compliant during inspection and mandated the submission of a report within six weeks regarding the enforcement actions and the status of compliance (!) (!) .
The Court also instructed that the three industries that were closed at the time of inspection remain closed until further orders (!) .
Overall, the judgment underscores the primacy of pollution control statutes over general criminal procedural provisions in environmental matters and emphasizes the proactive role of pollution control authorities in safeguarding environmental health (!) .

Please let me know if you need a detailed analysis or specific legal advice based on these points.

M.B.SHAH, J.

(1) A complaint was filed before the Collector, Dhar that there is an apprehension of danger to the lives of chattels and of adverse effect on the health of villagers due to the polluted water being discharged in the nearby stream by the liquor factories situated near the village. On the basis of the complaint, the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Dhar after inspecting the spot passed the preliminary order dated 26-10-1990 under Section 133 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1970 (for short "CrPC"), for closing down the factory on the ground that industries were causing serious pollution and thereby public nuisance. That order was challenged before the High Court. The High Court by the impugned order dated 16-3-1994 set aside that order by holding that in view of the provisions of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 and the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981, there was implied repeal of Section 133 CrPC so far as allegations of public nuisance or air and water pollution by industries or persons covered by the two Acts were concerned. The Court, therefore, held that the Magistrate had no jurisdiction to proceed under Section 133 CrPC and, therefore, set aside the impugned order. That order was challenged by the State of Madhya Pradesh by filing the present special leave petitions. On 25-9-1995 this Court granted stay of the operation of the impugned order. Subsequently, by an order dated 2-2-1996, after hearing the parties, leave was granted and the operation of the stay order was ordered to be continued. Despite the order of expeditious hearing the matter was not heard because the State was not in a position to serve all the respondents for one or the other reason which we fail to understand.

(2) HOWEVER, when the matter came up for hearing on 11-9-2000, this Court, considering the serious consequences of the alleged air and water pollution because of the pollutant discharged by the respondent industries directed the Madhya Pradesh State Pollution Control Board (for short "M.P. SPCB") and the Central Pollution Control Board (for short "CPCB") to inspect the premises and site of the following units:

1. M/s Kedia Leather & Liquor Pvt. Ltd., Ekalduna, District Dhar (M.P.)

2. M/s Malwa Vanaspati & Chemical Co. Ltd. Factory, Village Sejwaya, District Dhar (M.P.)

3. M/s Sanghi Organics & Phytochem Pvt. Ltd., Sejwaya, Chata Billod, District Dhar (M.P.)

4. M/s Tirupati Starch & Chemicals Ltd., Sejwaya, Chata Billed, District Dhar (M.P.)

5. M/s Shaba Chemicals Pvt. Ltd., Ekalduna, District Dhar (M.P.)

(3) ON the basis of the joint inspection carried out by the State and the Central Pollution Control Boards, report was filed before this Court along with the affidavit dated 12-10-2000. The report, inter alia, mentions that the following industries were found closed:

1. M/s Malwa Vanaspati & Chemical Co. Ltd., Dhar (M.P.)

2. M/s Sanghi Organics & Phytochem Pvt. Ltd., Dhar (M.P.)

3. M/s Shaba Chemicals, Mhow Road, Ratlam, M.P. (industry is located at Ratlam and not in Ekalduna, District Dhar)

(4) WITH regard to inspection of M/s Kedia Leather and Liquor Pvt. Ltd. the report reveals as under:

(A) The unit has provided effluent treatment facilities to treat 300 m3/day of effluent which is equivalent to 20 KLD of alcohol production only.

(B) The unit has provided kuccha (unlined) tanks for cooling of spent wash.

(D) The Managing Director of the unit informed that they are applying treated effluent on 85 acres of land which is not adequate and the unit has also not followed any scientific methodology for application of treated effluent on land.

(E) It was observed that final effluent was being stored in kuccha (unlined) lagoons having total storage capacity of 85,000 m3.

(F) A sample of final trea

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2001 Supreme(SC) 2

SUPREME COURT OF INDIAM.B.Shah : S.N.VariavaState Of M.P.VersusKedia Leather And Liquor Private LimitedCase No. : 151 , 158 of 1996Date of Decision : 1/2/01Advocates Appeared: Gambhir S.K. : Mohan K.K. : Panjwani Vijay : Singh Uma Nath : Sinha Awanish

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
M.B.Shah : S.N.Variava
State Of M.P.
Versus
Kedia Leather And Liquor Private Limited
Case No. : 151 , 158 of 1996
Date of Decision : 1/2/01
Advocates Appeared: Gambhir S.K. : Mohan K.K. : Panjwani Vijay : Singh Uma Nath : Sinha Awanish