Back
2007(4) Kar. L.J. 569
MOHAN SHANTANAGOUDAR, J.
NITIN MAJUMDAR -Appellant
versus
STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ANOTHER -Respondent
Criminal Petition No. 4760 of 2006 connected with Criminal Petition Nos. 4761, 4762 and 4763 of 2006.
Decided on:17th April, 2007
Cases Referred: (1991) I SCC 598; AIR 1996 Allahabad 173.
Constitution of India - Article 21 - Right under - Right to pollution free water and air for full enjoyment of life is covered by.
Cases Referred: (1991) I SCC 598; AIR 1996 Allahabad 173.
Words and Phrases - Plant - "Plant" means the fixtures, machinery, tools, things, stocks, apparatus, applicances etc. necessary to carry on any trade or mechanical business, or any mechanical operation or process. This Court is of the considered opinion that the word "plant" has got exhaustive meaning and such meaning cannot be delimited. It is too broad. The plant will include any article or object fixed or movable, live or dead, used by a businessman for carrying on his business and it is not necessarily confined to an apparatus which is used for mechanical operations or processes or is employed in mechanical or industrial business. Any structure or thing which is used in the business either as a seat of business or the location where the business is carried on can be said to be "plant", in the sense that it is one of means of carrying on the business.
Referred: (1991) I SCC 598; AIR 1996 Allahabad 173.
Interpretation of Statutes - Beneficial legislation - If two views possible - One which advances object of the Act and is in favour of people at large for whose benefit the Act is made, has to be accepted. [Mohan Shantanagoudar, J]: The judiciary in its spehere, shares the revolutionary purpose of the Constitutional order and when called upon to decode social legislation must be animated by a goal-oriented approach. Where the law is meant for solving the human problems, the approach of the Court has to be from the point of view of furthering social interest and Courts should not function as if they are vacuo, but must act as parts of the society.
Cases Referred: (1991) I SCC 598; AIR 1996 Allahabad 173.
Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 - Section 21 and 37 - Violation of - Establishment of Iron Ore Stack yards without consent of State Board Violates - Section 21 and Punishable under Section 37.
Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 - Section 43(1) - Complaint - Who can lodge - Complaints lodged by Board represented by its Regional Officer - Prima facie they are lodged by Board itself.
Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 - Preamble - Object of the Act - Stated. [Mohan Shantanagoudar, J]: As the legislature considered it necessary to implement the decisions taken at United Nations Conference on the Human Environment held in Stockholm, in June 1972 for which India is the signatory and for taking appropriate steps for preservation of the natural resources for the earth which, among other things, include the preservation of the quality of air and control of air pollution, the "Air Act" was enacted. The Act provides for prevention, control and abatement of air pollution. As the air pollution is steadily increasing day by day, the "Air Act" was enacted for controlling the same. It is needless to mention that the presence in air, beyond certain limits of various pollutants discharged through industrial emissions and from certain human activities connected with traffic, heating, use of domestic fuel, refuse incinerations, etc. has a detrimental effect on the health of the people as also on animal life, vegetation and property.
Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 - Section 15 - Delegation of functions - State Board can subject to such conditions and limitations delegate to its officers such of its powers and functions as it may deem necessary - Board authorised its Chairman to initiate legal action under the Act - Inturn Chairman authoritsed a Regional Officer - Does not amount to sub-delegation - Not hit by principles of delegatus non potest delegare. [Mohan Shantanagoudar, J]: The Chairman could have signed the complaint and could have lodged the complaint. However, he has chosen to authorise the Regional Officer of the area to lodge the complaint. This action of the Chairman of the State Board does not amount to sub-delegation of his power. He has merely authorised the Regional Officer to initiate criminal action against the petitioners. Where, the Board wants to file complaint, naturally the act of filling complaint is to be performed by some Officer of the Board well conversant with the facts of the case as the Board being a Corporate personality is a legal person and not natural person. Thus, for initiating the legal action, the Board authorised one of its members, i.e., the Chairman, who in turn nominated the Regional Officer to file the complaint. Hence, the same does not violate the provisions of Section 43 of the" Air Act", In this case, mere nomination of the Regional Officer by the Chairman of the Board does not amount to further delegation of delegated power. Section 43 of the" Air Act.
Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 - Section 17, 18 and 22 - Written directions of Central Board - Binds State Board. [Mohan Shantanagoudar, J]: The Central Board notified the National ambient air quality standards. The said notification binds all the State Boards in India including the Karnataka State Pollution Control Board. It is further clear from the said notification that the Central Board fixed certain standards relating to emission of pollutants in area including the pollutant "Suspended Particulate Matter" (SPM). In this matter the pollutant which eminates from Iron Ore Stack Yard is Suspended Particulate Matter as is clear from the documents produced by the State Board along with the complaint. Thus, even if no separate notification is issued by the State Board laying down the standards for emission of air pollutants into atmosphere from the Iron Ore Stack Yards in question, the aforementioned notification dated 11.4.1994 issued by the Central Pollution Control Board deemed to be the notification issued by the State Board for all practical purposes inasmuch as the State Board shall have to follow the guidelines laid down in the notification dated 11-4-1994 issued by the Central Control Board. This is further clear from the provisions of Section 18 of the "Air Act". In this view of the matter, it cannot be said that the petitioners have not violated the provisions of Section 22 of the "Air Act".
Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 - Section 2(k) - Industrial plant - Definition - If a plant is used for any industrial or trade purposes and if it emits any air pollutant in atmosphere, it is an industrial plant - Person who has control over affairs of premises or in possession of the substance is an occupier - Includes Iron Ore Stack yard which eminates dust.
Cases Referred: (1991) I SCC 598; AIR 1996 Allahabad 173.
Legal Maxims - Delegatus non potest delegare - There cannot be sub-delegation or further delegation of the delegated powers. [Mohan Shantanagoudar, J]: The maxim delegatus non protest delegare does not embody a rule of law. It merely lays down a rule of construction of a statute. However, looking to the facts and circumstances of each case, the construction that would best achieve the purpose and object of the statute should be adopted.
Cases Referred: (1991) I SCC 598; AIR 1996 Allahabad 173.
These petitions are filed by the accused in Crl. Case Nos. 532, 531, 523 and 527 of 2006, pending on the file of Judicial Magistrate First Class Court, Dandeli, seeking quashing of the said proceedings.
2. The Karnataka State Pollution Control Board (in short, 'State Board'), through its Regional Officer, Karwar, has lodged the complaints against the petitioners herein alleging violation of Sections 21 and 22 of Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 (for short hereinafter referred to as the 'Air Act'), which is punishable under Section 37 of the Air Act. It is alleged in the complaint that the petitioners have illegally established and are operating the Iron Ore Stack Yard, at various places in Uttara Kannada District, without the previous consent of the Karnataka State Pollution Control Board (for short hereinafter referred to as the 'State Board'); that the accused have not provided any pollution control measure inspite of repeated requests and instructions by the officials of State Board; that the meetings were held between then representatives of the accused and the officials of the State Board and in the said meetings, the accused have agreed for providing pollution control measures to the Iron Ore Stack Yards and prayed for time for the said purpose; inspite of the same, the accused-petitioners did not provide any pollution control measure to the Iron Ore Stack Yards. The permission is not obtained for establishing Iron Ore Stack Yard even thereafter. As the petitioners continued their illegal operations without complying with the norms, as stipulated under Sections 21 and 22 of Air Act, the complaint came to be lodged. Prior to lodging of complaints, the joint inspection of the officials of State Board with the representatives of the petitioners was made and during the said inspection it was observed as under:
(a) The bunds of sufficient height/retaining wall/Barricade of sufficient height around the storage yard is not provided;
(b) Continuous water sprinkling system (roads, storage yard) not adopted to suppress the fugitive emission of fine dust particles and most care to be taken during the unloading of vehicles;
(c) The loaded lorries not covered with good quality tarpaulins during transportation;
(d) The unloaded lorries are not cleaned thoroughly;
(e) The Iron ore filled bags/cement hollow blocks/sand bags are not kept around the covered Iron ore stacks;
(f) The storm water drain and garland canal not made around the stack yard;
(g) The settling tank of sufficient size not provided to treat the surface runoff from the stack yard;
(h) Even after repeated notices issued from this office, the said company had failed to apply and obtain the consent for operation of the complainant-Board. This is a continuous actionable nuisance and offence under Sections 21/22 and 37 of Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981. Besides this, the accused person has violated many other provisions of. Environmental Laws related to pollution control, for which the complainant reserves his right to prosecute the accused.
3. As the activities of the accused are detrimental to the society at large and as the Iron Ore particles used to spread and mingle with air, which is detrimental to the nature and health of public at large, the complaints came to be lodged before the Judicial Magistrate First Class Court, Dandeli, as aforementioned by the State Board represented by its Regional Officer against the petitioners herein. The ,learned Magistrate after perusing the complaint and the documents produced along with the complaint, issued process against the petitioners. The petitioners have in these petitions have sought for quashing the proceedings pending before the Judicial Magistrate First Class Court.
4. Sri V.P. Kulkarni, learned Advocate appearing for the petitioners in all these matters contended firstly, that Iron Ore Stack Yard is not an industrial plant as defined under Section 2(k) of the Air Act and hence the violati
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
