Anand Prasad Sinha, J.

1. This application is directed against the order dated 19.8.1981 passed in Case No. 52 G.C. of 1981 by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Barb, who has taken cognizance under Sections 41 and 44 of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) against the petitioners and transferred the case to thefile of Sri R.K. Mishra, Judicial Magistrate, Barh, for disposal. Further, he passed an order for the issue of summons fixing 30.9.1981 for appearance.

2. A complaint had been filed by the Bihar State Water (Pollution Control and Prevention) Board (hereinafter referred to as the Board) against the Manager, Bata India Shoes Company, Mofcmah Ghat and also M/s Bata India Limited, Mokamaghat, P.O. Hathidah, District Patna. The offences alleged to have been committed, were stated to be under Sections 41 and 44 of the Act.

3. In the complaint petition, it has been stated that the main purpose of the Act has been for establishing or restoring of wholesomeness of water for the benefit of the society at large and environmental protection. It has been found that the industries were mainly responsible for polluting water and the streams by discharging their poisonous effluent in the water of streams without getting them treated by some treatment plant, which is detrimental to society at large. The Board has been authorised to give direction requiring any person incharge of any establishment of any industry or trade being carried out to furnish to it information regarding the construction, installation or operation of such establishment of any disposal system or of any extension or addition thereto in the establishment.

4. The Board had given notices to each establishment including the accused Company to furnish the information in the prescribed form about their installation of their discharging of efHuents system, if any. The accused Company is situate by the side of the river Ganges at Mokamaghat and it discharge vast mass of effluent without proper treatment directly to river Ganges causing pollution giving rise to problems to the inhabitants and surrounding environments. The Board had asked the accused Company to file the consent application and the project report of the treatment plant, if any, for the approval and consent of the Board. The accused Company on 15.12.1979 filed an incomplete and irrelevant consent application to the Board for the purpose of consent.

5. Shrl Shiv Kumar Singh, an Engineer of the Board had verified the said consent application and it was found faulty and it was not in accordance with the particulars which had been required. A letter bearing No. 215 dated 23.2.1980, which has been annexed as Annexure-i to the complaint petition, had been sent to the accused Company by Board rejecting the consent application and that was communicated to the Company. The accused Company was asked to submit a detailed project report regarding the effluent treatment plant. The accused company did not file any application, in spite of the repeated reminders to the State Board; on the other hand the discharge of effluent continued. Ultimately, when even on repeated reminders no such consent petition had been filed by the accused Company, a registered letter on 11.2.1980 was sent to the accused Company to submit a project report at the earliest but in spite of that the project report had not been submitted. It appsars that the accused Company by letter dated 26.9.1980 had acknowledged that registered letter and it had intimated that it would instal the treatment plant very shortly, but in spite of that no treatment plant had been installed.

6. On 5.1.1981 Shrl Binod Bihari Sandwar, Assistant Chemist of the State Board submitted a report that he has made analysis of the water dischargedb made by the accused Company in the stream of Ganges and after due analysis, it was found that the effluent discharged by the accused Company had highly polluted Ganges