Back
Bombay High Court (AURANGABAD)
K.U.CHANDIWAL, J.
Western Maharashtra Development Corporation
Versus
The State of Maharashtra
Decided On : 16/4/2013
Contamination - Environmental Pollution - Indian Penal Code, Sections 166, 269 r/w 34, and The Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, Section 3(1)(xiii) and Section 4
Fact of the Case:
A distillery operation in Chitali, Rahata Ahmednagar district, led to environmental pollution and adverse effects on agricultural properties and well water. Litigation ensued, with the respondent filing a complaint against the petitioners for various offenses under the Indian Penal Code and the SC/ST Act.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioners failed to address the contamination and its impact on the villagers, and did not fulfill their obligations as public servants. The court dismissed the writ petition and refused the extension of interim relief.
Issues: The issues revolved around environmental pollution, public servant obligations, and the impact on the villagers, as well as the legality of the distillery operation and subsequent transfer of ownership.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the petitioners' negligent acts led to contamination and endangerment of villagers' lives, and that they failed to fulfill their duties as public servants. The court also considered the impact on the respondent and the surrounding community.
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed, and the extension of interim relief was refused. The court expedited the trial.
K.U.CHANDIWAL, J.
1. Rule was issued on 6th February, 2007. Heard Mr.Godsay and Party in person, who argued in Marathi.
2. A distillery was started at Chitali in Rahata Ahmednagar district by the Government of Maharashtra. It was transferred to the petitioner – Western Maharashtra Development Corporation (for short, the Corporation). For the purposes of such industrial unit, the distillery, properties of agriculturists were acquired. However, the left over properties in the near by area were adversely affected due to non-treatment of spent water/molasses. This resulted into percolation in the wells and fertility of the soil was adversely affected. The farmers in the area staged agitation. The Government, at that time, realized a piquant condition. Consequently, fresh water used to be supplied to Chitali village. However, it did not resolve the damage to the agricultural fields, yield and to the well water.
3. Respondent No.2 and others filed Writ Petition No.2533/1989 in this Court, asserting privilege including fresh water; services to youths of the farmers, who lost their agricultural properties. An affidavit was filed on behalf of the Corporation, clarifying that the claim of the petitioners will be considered along with other similarly situated persons. Hence the petition was withdrawn with liberty to move the High court afresh, if the Corporation deviates from the assurance given in the affidavit.
4. It was canvassed that Corporation has filled in certain vacancies in consultation with village Sarpanch and few villagers were given employment. However, Respondent No.2, felt that there was an illegal league between the Corporation and local Sarpanch, as the persons belonging to backward class, were systematically eliminated from getting employment. It was also canvassed by the Respondent No.2, there could not be a local authority vested in the Sarpanch to act as a catalyst and perform such act detrimental to the interest of villagers as a whole.
5. Respondent No.2 filed a complaint before learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Shrirampur, against the petitioners and others for having committed offences under Sections 166, 167, 188, 202, 203, 206, 217, 128, 219, 221, 269, 269, 270, 427 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code and under Section 3(1)(xiii) and under Section 4 of The Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, (for short, SC/ST Act).
6. There were rounds of litigations owing to said complaint. It was dismissed. It was questioned by Respondent No.2 by Criminal Revision No.15/2004. It was allowed on 8.3.2004, restoring the complaint to original position. Statement of Respondent No.2 was recorded and learned JMFC issued process against the petitioners for offence under Sections 166, 269 r/w 34 of IPC by order dated 13.5.2004. the orders were again questioned in this Court. However, as the Respondent No.2 had filed criminal revision No. 33/2004, the petitioners were also asked to avail remedy of revision (vide Criminal WP No.260/2004) and hence the revision No.42/2004 was preferred by the Corporation before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Shrirampur. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, on 28.09.2005 dismissed both the revisions and consequently the order of issuance of process was maintained. The petitioners questioned the same order in present writ petition. However, Respondent No.2 has accepted the verdict of nonissuance process under other provisions of IPC and under SC/ST Act.
7. Mr.Godsay, learned Counsel for the petitioners, submits that due care is taken to regulate spent water as lagoons are erected in a sprawling area of 80 acres and the contamination has now turned to zero percent. Now the water source is safe and cannot be said to be unfit for human consumption. . Mr.Godsay further pointed the ingredients of Section 166 of IPC and according to him, it will not attract involvement of public servant to disobey the law deliberately with intent to cause injury to
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
