2019 Supreme(Bom) 2182
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
Mridula Bhatkar, J.
K.v. Kurundkar & Anr. - Appellants
Versus
State Of Maharashtra & Anr. - Respondents
Criminal Writ Petition No. 3628 of 2018
Decided On : 02-05-2019
Daraius Khambatta, Adv., Saket Mone, Adv., Vishesh Kalra, Adv., Sonal More, Adv., Subit Chakraborti, Adv., Neha Joshi, Adv., Vidhii Partners, Adv., Milind Sathe, Adv., Sharmila U. Deshmukh, Adv., Jaya J. Bagwe, Adv., Dileep B. Nivetia, Adv., A.R. Patil, Adv.
Headnote:
Constitution of India, 1950 - Articles 226 and 227 - Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Sections 482 and 204 - Environment Act, 1986 - Sections 7, 8, 9, 10, 15, 16, 17, 19 and 25 - National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 - Sections 25 and 30 - Air Act, 1981 – Sections 31A and 17 - Water Act, 1974 - Sections 25, 44, 47 and 88 - Noise Pollution Rules, 2000 - Sections 3, 6, 25, 14, 15 and 26 - National Green Tribunal - Sea Link Project - It is case of complainant i-e respondent no -2 that government under supervision of accused no - 12 state road development corporation ltd took a policy decision to construct sea link project - At that time accused no - 12 i-e MSRDC received an environmental clearance for construction of bwsl project was completed and it was inaugurated and was made available to public - It is case of complainant that thereafter it was noticed that after inauguration of BWSL project additional vehicles ply per day on this road against earlier vehicle movement and therefore there is tremendous increase in vehicular traffic in sea face area leading abnormal increase in levels of air and noise pollution - Level of air pollution is beyond national ambient air quality standards issued by central pollution control board - Held, All these documents and communication is a part of complaint - It shows that accused No - 21 and environment department/accused no-17 have taken steps pursuant to order of national green tribunal - However as pointed out by complainant if at all there is air pollution or noise pollution then it is to be controlled as suggested by him strictly compulsory that PUC and honking is required to be monitored - In criminal law it is necessary for complainant to make out a specific case against each accused - General allegations are not sufficient to issue process against any person - In present matter petitioners were not parties in miscellaneous application before national green tribunal - It is also not clear what directions were given to these petitioners and by whom - Thus considering present set of facts as per directions given by national green tribunal action was taken by accused i-e environment department and pollution control board hence there is no material to issue process against these petitioners - Thus order of issuance of process is set aside and quashed petitioners only - I appreciate efforts taken by respondent/original complainant for maintaining ecological balance of this fully crowded city - Writ Petitions are allowed.
JUDGMENT
Mridula Bhatkar, J. - All these four Petitions are heard together and decided finally at the stage of admission. In all these Petitions, the petitioners, who are original accused Nos. 12 to 15 and 19 to 22, are challenging the order dated 8th March, 2018 passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 62nd Court, Dadar, Mumbai, issuing process under Sections 7, 8, 9, 10, 15, 16 and 17 of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as "the said Act") read with Rules 3, 3 (3-B), 5 and 14 of the Environment (Protection) Rules, (1986) (hereinafter referred to as "the said Rules") and Rules 2,3,4,7 and 8 of the Noise Pollution (Regulation & Control) Rules (2000) (hereinafter referred to as "the Noise Rules") and, therefore, all these Petitions are disposed of by a common order.
2. It is the case of the complainant i.e., respondent No.2 that the Government under the supervision of accused No. 12 i.e., Maha-rashtra State Road Development Corporation Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "the MSRDC") took a policy decision to construct Bandra Worli Sea Link Project (hereinafter referred to as "BWSL"). At that time, accused No. 12 i.e., the MSRDC received an Environmental Clearance for construction of BWSL Project. BWSL Project was completed and it was inaugurated on 1st July, 2009, and was made available to public. It is the case of the complainant that thereafter, it was noticed that after inauguration of the BWSL Project, nearly 45,000 additional vehicles ply per day on this road against the earlier vehicle movement of around 3,000 to 5,000 per day and, therefore, there is tremendous increase in vehicular traffic in Worli Sea Face area leading abnormal increase in the levels of air and noise pollution. The level of the air pollution is beyond the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (hereinafter referred to as "NAAQS") issued by Central Pollution Control Board (hereinafter referred to as "CPCB"). The complainant has relied on the studies conducted by National Environmental Engineering Research Institute (hereinafter referred to as "NEERI") and the noise monitoring conducted by accused No. 21. The noise pollution has exceeded the levels prescribed under the Noise Rules. The air and noise pollution is a direct cause of the traffic movement in BSWL. According to the complainant, liberty was granted by this Court in Writ Petition No. 992 of 2010, therefore, the complainant had moved before the National Green Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as "the NGT") by filing an Application No. 35 of 2011. In the said Application, on 28th July, 2016, the NGT had passed the order of amicable settlement. Pursuant to which, certain directions were given, however, till today, there is no change in the noise and air pollution levels. Hence, the complainant, before filing the complaint, gave prerequisite notice of 60 days as contemplated under Section 19(b) of the said Act to all the respondents for violation of the relevant Sections of the said Act so also the said Rules and also for breach of Notification No. MIS/2014/CR 71/TC1 dated 31st July, 2014 issued by Environment Department, Government of Maharashtra. Thereafter, the complainant lodged a private complaint in which, the learned Magistrate considered the complaint and the documents placed before it and passed the following order on 8th March, 2018 :
"Read the complaint as well as verification statement of complainant. I have gone through the documents which are filed in support of allegation of the complaint. I have also taken into account documents i.e. copy of order passed in Writ Petition No. 992/2010, the letter of Member Secretary of Maharashtra Pollution Control dated 29/09/2016, the letter of Member Secretary of Maharashtra Pollution Control dated 10/11/2016, the letter of Member Secretary of Maharashtra Pollution Control dated 11/11/2016. I have also considered Form IV i.e. copy of notice issued to respondents. I have also carefully read the decision of the Hon''b