Back
2020 Supreme(Kar) 688
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
Suraj Govindaraj, J.
G.T. Hanumantharaju Chief Officer (now Municipal Commissioner) Challakere Town Municipal Council, Chitradurga District - Appellant
Versus
Karnataka State Pollution Control Board - Respondent
Criminal Petition No. 1254 of 2017
Decided On : 24-06-2020
K.N. Dayalu, Advocate, Pavan Kumar, Advocate, H. Devendrappa, Advocate
The main legal point established is the collective responsibility for establishing sewage treatment plants and obtaining consent, and the need for government officials to adhere to pollution control laws.
Headnote:
KSPCB - Pollution Control - Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 (Section 44, Section 25) - The court discussed the complaint filed under Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and Section 44 read with Section 25 of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974. The key legal provisions discussed were Section 48 of the Act, which deems the head of a government department guilty of an offence under the Act, and Section 49(i)(b) of the Act, which requires prior notice for environmental degradation complaints. The court emphasized the collective responsibility for establishing sewage treatment plants and obtaining consent, and the need for government officials to adhere to pollution control laws.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought to quash proceedings initiated by the Karnataka State Pollution Control Board (KSPCB) for alleged sewage disposal causing pollution and danger to human life. The petitioner argued that he should not be individually made a party and raised procedural objections.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the filing of proceedings against the petitioner was valid under Section 48 of the Act, and the petitioner's defense of lack of knowledge or due diligence would be determined during trial. The court rejected objections regarding non-recording of sworn statement, non-reference to documents, prior notice requirement, and the need for prior sanction under Section 197 of Cr.P.C.
Issues: The issues involved the individual filing of proceedings, procedural objections, and legal requirements for environmental complaints.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the collective responsibility for establishing sewage treatment plants and obtaining consent, and the need for government officials to adhere to pollution control laws. It also clarified legal provisions regarding prior notice and prior sanction for environmental complaints.
Final Decision: The petition was rejected, with a clarification that the court's observations would not influence the trial court.
JUDGMENT
Suraj Govindaraj, J. - The petitioner is before this Court seeking for quashing of the proceedings initiated on a complaint filed by the Karnataka State Pollution Control Board (hereinafter referred to as 'KSPCB' for short) against the petitioner which on cognizance has been registered in C.C.No.137/2016 on the file of the Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Challakere.
2. Admit
3. With consent of both parties the matter is taken up for final disposal.
4. The complaint under Section 200 of Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as 'Cr.P.C.' for short), Section 44 read with Section 25 of Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 (hereinafter referred as 'Act' for short) has been filed by the KSPCB represented by its Environmental Officer, Chitradurga alleging that:
4.1 The Town Municipal Council though bound to look after the health and sanitary condition of the general public by providing proper sewage disposal system, is discharging the sewage generated from the entire Town into the natural nalla without establishing a proper sewage treatment plant and without treating the same, which is causing pollution and danger to human life.
4.2 The Municipal Council had not obtained a valid consent from the KSPCB for such disposal of sewage in a natural nalla.
4.3 Initially, when the consent for disposal was issued by the KSPCB in the year 2009, a specific condition was imposed at that time itself that the Municipal Council shall install and operate an effluent treatment plant as approved by the Board. The Municipal Council shall only discharge the effluent to the place mentioned in the consent order. The Municipal Council shall carryout self monitoring of the effluents on frequent intervals and analyse the same and submit a report to the area regional Office of the KSPCB.
4.4 In view of the non-compliance of the said conditions, the consent application, which had been filed by the Municipal Council for the period 01.07.2010 to 30.06.2011 was refused. For the subsequent year from 01.07.2011 to 30.06.2012, there was no application which had been filed by the Municipal Council. Thereafter, the applications which have been filed for the period from 01.07.2012 to 30.06.2013 was again refused due to non-compliance. Similar was the case, as regards the applications which had been filed for the period 01.07.2013 to 30.06.2014, as also 01.07.2014 to 30.06.2015. Suffice it to say that over a period of five years there were no steps taken by the Municipal Council to obtain a valid consent from the KSPCB for discharging of the sewage and effluent.
4.5 The KSPCB's Officer inspected the spot on 17.07.2014 and found that untreated sewage was flowing in an open drain near Valmiki Kalyana Mantapa, Bangalore Road, Challakere.
4.6 A notice of intension in Form XII came to be issued on the petitioner who was the then Chief Officer of the Town Municipal Counsel, Challakere under the provision of Section 31(2) of the Act.
4.7 A mahazar was conducted by KSPCB's Officer in the presence of the concerned Technical Officer.
4.8 Despite a request for production of the consent order, no consent order had been produced by the petitioner-the Chief Officer of the Town Municipal Council.
4.9 Hence, the complaint came to be filed against the petitioner relying on Section 48 of the Act.
5. On filing of the complaint, since the complaint had been filed by the Government Officer, the examination of the complainant for the purpose of recording of the sworn statement was exempted by the Magistrate. Thereafter, cognizance was taken on 02.02.2016 and process was issued returnable by 28.04.2016.
6. The petitioner is before this Court contending that the petitioner could not have been made a party in his individual name and the petitioner is not the only person responsible for the lapses, if any, the establishment of the STP (Sewage Treatment Plant) or ETP (Effluent Treatment Plant) and obtaining of consent is a collective responsibility of the Kar
