IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
GITA GOPI, J.
PHILLIPS CARBON BLACK LIMITED – Appellant
Versus
REGIONAL OFFICER BHUJ – Respondent
Special Criminal Application No. 236 of 2009
Decided On : 30-09-2021
Constitution of India, 1950 – Section 226 – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 482 – Companies Act, 1956 – Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 – Section 3, 16, 19 – Criminal Case – Petitioners are before this Court under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code and under Section 226 of Constitution of India with a prayer to quash and set aside Criminal Case pending before Court of learned JMFC, Kutch as well as to quash and set aside summons issued by learned JMFC in said case – Held, Continuation of proceedings would be total hardship to petitioners, as would lead them to face unwarranted trials, thus in view of categories and principles laid down in case of State of Haryana (Supra), Criminal Case pending before Court of learned JMFC, Mundra, Kutch as well summons issued by learned JMFC in said case and proceedings initiated in pursuance thereof are quashed and set aside – Rule is made absolute to aforesaid extent – Direct service is permitted – Ordered Accordingly.
JUDGMENT :
GITA GOPI, J.
1. The petitioners are before this Court under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code and under Section 226 of the Constitution of India with a prayer to quash and set aside the Criminal Case No. 1385 of 2008 pending before the Court of learned JMFC, Mundra, Kutch as well as to quash and set aside the summons dated 16.01.2009 issued by the learned JMFC in the said case.
2. It is stated by the petitioners that the petitioner no. 1-Company is registered under the Companies Act, 1956, having the registered office at Kolkata and Mumbai and the company is engaged in manufacturing carbon black having its factories located at (i) R.N. Mukherjee Road, Durgapur, West Bengal (ii) Karimugal, Kochi, Kerala and (iii) N.H. No. 8, G.I.D.C. Plot No. 1, Palej, Gujarat. It is stated that the company was desirous of installing another factory at village Mokha, Taluka Mundra, District Kutch.
3. The allegations against the petitioner is in respect of non-compliance of the notification dated 14.09.2006 issued by the Ministry of Environment and Forests for the purpose of obtaining prior environmental clearance in context of Clause II of the said notification at the proposed site at Mundra. It is stated that as per the notification dated 14.09.2006, the appropriate government had mandated to obtain prior environmental clearance in respect of new projects and/or activities and/or construction work and/or land by the project management in accordance with the categories earmarked in the notification. It is stated by the petitioner that their project at Mundra falls under category A and for the purpose of obtaining prior environmental clearance the procedures as laid down is required to be followed. The petitioners had applied on 31.05.2007 to the appropriate authority for obtaining environmental clearance for the installation of new carbon block manufacturing plant and co-generation of power plant at Mundra, District Kutch, Gujarat.
4. Learned advocate for the petitioner Mr. Nandish Chudgar submitted that pursuant to the said application, the expert appraisal committee discussed and finalized the draft terms of reference during its 73rd meeting held on 24.10.2007. Pursuant there to letter on 17.12.2007, was issued conveying the petitioner company the Terms of Reference for carrying out environmental impact assessment status. Appropriate procedures were followed and same was intimated to the concerned department. On 23.05.2008, public hearing was held at GPCB, Mundra and vide letter dated 29.05.2008 the petitioner company submitted final environmental impact assessment/environmental management plan and public hearing report requesting for environmental clearance to its proposed project in view of the notification dated 14.09.2006.
5. Mr. Chudgar, learned advocate stated that on 19.08.2008, environment clearance notification was given by the appropriate government and No Objection Certificate/ Consent to establish was issued by GPCB on 17.12.2008.
6. Mr. Chudgar, learned advocate for the petitioners submitted that prior to the issuance of summons on 16.01.2009 towards the complaint filed by the respondent no. 1, the company was in receipt of No Objection Certificate/Consent to Establish issued by the respondent no. 1 and the said fact was not brought to the notice of the learned JMFC, had it been so, the learned JMFC would not have taken cognizance of the matter. It is also stated that no vicarious liability gets attracted against the Directors and further contended that the complaint is without any application of mind and all the accused to the complaint, Chairman, Managing Director and all the Directors have been mechan ically roped in the matter without any iota of evidence to specify whether they are in-charge of day to day activities or affairs of the company or are responsible for the conduct of the business of the company.
7. Mr. Nandish Chudgar, learned advocate for the petitioner, referring to the notification dated 14.09.200
K. Srikanth Singh vs. North East Securities Ltd and Another
National Small Industries Corporation Ltd. vs. Harmeet Singh Paintal
Pooja Ravinder Devidasani vs. State of Maharashtra and Another
Pepsi Foods Ltd. and Another vs. Special Judicial Magistrate
State of Haryana vs. Bhajan Lal and Others
S.M.S. Pharmaceuticals Ltd. vs. Neeta Bhalla
State (NCT of Delhi) v. Rajiv Khurana
U.P. Pollution Control Board vs. M/s. Mohan Meakins Ltd. 2000 CrLJ 1799
The main legal point established in the judgment is that prosecution under the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 may be considered an abuse of process of law if environmental clearance is granted af....
All mining operations require Environmental Clearance post-15.01.2016, and the Jan Vishwas Act does not retroactively decriminalize past violations of the Environment (Protection) Act.
Criminal proceedings under the Environment (Protection) Act may be quashed if no requisite environmental clearance is mandated due to construction area being below the statutory threshold.
Cognizance of environmental protection act offenses can only be taken on a complaint made by the Central Government or an authorized person, as required by the relevant acts.
The complaint under the Environment (Protection) Act can be filed by authorized officers of the State Pollution Control Board, and the absence of explicit authorization resolution does not invalidate....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.