JUDGMENT :

Heard Mr. Indrajit Sinha, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Mr. Santosh Kumar Shukla, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent State.

2. This petition has been heard through Video Conferencing in view of the guidelines of the High Court taking into account the situation arising due to COVID-19 pandemic. None of the parties have complained about any technical snag of audio-video and with their consent this matter has been heard.

3. The petitioner has filed this petition for quashing the entire criminal proceedings initiated against the petitioner in connection with C2 Case No.516 of 2013 including the order dated 16.12.2013 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Jamshedpur whereby cognizance has been taken for the offences under section 15 of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 against the petitioner, pending in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Jamshedpur.

4. Mr. Indrajit Sinha, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that letter dated 25.05.2005 contained in Annexure-3 passed by Dy. Managing Director (Steel) to Chief Inspector of Factories seeking approval of plan for new LD Gas Holder and by letter dated 28.05.2005 as contained in Annexure-4 the Chief Inspector of Factories approved the drawings. By letter dated 27.07.2005 addressed by the Chief Safety and Ergonomics, Tata Steel to the Chief Inspector of Factories regarding On-Site Emergency Plan and Disaster Control inside the Works was submitted which was also approved by the Chief Inspector of Factories vide letter No.82/P dated 29.05.2006. By letter dated 26.04.2006, the Chief Inspector of Factories sought certain information as per the proforma enclosed in the said letter. On 10.05.2006 the LD Gas Holder was commissioned. By letter dated 29.05.2006 which was addressed by the Deputy Managing Director (Steel) to Chief Inspector of Factories submitted the requisite information viz. status of implementation on various requirements under the Manufacture, Storage and Import of Hazardous Chemicals Rules, 1989 and Chemical Accident (EPPRP) Rules, 1996. Both the rules are under Environment Protection Act. By letter dated 29.12.2006, the Chief Inspector of Factories approved the On-Site Emergency Plan and Disaster Control inside the Works. By letter dated 03.07.2007 the Inspector of Factories, Circle-1 sought certain clarification from the Deputy Managing Director (Steel). By letter dated 10.07.2007 which was addressed by the Chief Safety and Ergonomics to Inspector of Factories, Circle-I, Jamshedpur furnished information which was required by letter dated 03.07.2007. The petitioner was inducted in the Board of M/s Tata Steel on 15.11.2013. The Chief Inspector of Factories has inspected the L.D.Gas Holder which was erected and installed between 2004-2005. A show cause was issued against the company by letter dated 21.11.2013 which was replied by letter dated 03.12.2013. A show cause was issued against the company on 10.12.2013 and on this background on 11.12.2013 a complaint case was filed in the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jamshedpur by the Chief Inspector of Factories and by order dated 16.12.2013 cognizance has been taken against the petitioner.

5. Mr. Indrajit Sinha, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that provisions of Rule 7(1) and 10 of the Manufacture, Storage and Import of Hazardous Chemicals Rules, 1989 speaks of approval and notification on site. He submits that for non-compliance of Rules 7 and 10, the punishment is prescribed under section 15 of Environment Protection Act, 1986. He submits that the petitioner is Managing Director of the Establishment of M/s Tata Steel Limited, within whose premises the said incident had occurred. The petitioner has been named as the sole accused in the said prosecution case, purportedly for being a person who at the time of the alleged offence was committed was directly in charge of and was responsi