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 the complaint.

JUDGMENT :

ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J.

Heard the parties.

2. This Criminal Miscellaneous Petition has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 with the prayer to quash the order dated 20.10.2020 passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ghatsila in connection with Complaint Case no. 271 of 2020 whereby learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ghatsila has taken cognizance for the offence punishable under Section 15 of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986, inter alia against the petitioner and passed the summoning order.

3. The brief fact of the case is that the petitioner M/s Hindustan Copper Limited, Surda Mines, was involved in the said mine, producing the copper ores, during the year 1992-93 to 2018-19 without obtaining Environmental Clearance from the Ministry of Environment and Forest, Government of India, in contravention to the provisions of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner draws the attention of this Court towards Section 19 of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 which reads as under:-

“19. Cognizance of offences.—No court shall take cognizance of any offence under this Act except on a complaint made by—

(a) the Central Government or any authority or officer authorised in this behalf by that Government; or

[(aa) adjudicating officer or any officer authorised by him in this behalf;]

(b) any person who has given notice of not less than sixty days, in the manner prescribed, of the alleged offence and of his intention to make a complaint, to the Central Government or the authority or officer authorised as aforesaid.”

and submits that since the complaint has not been made by the Central Government or any authority or officer authorized in this behalf, by the Central Government, hence, the complaint is not valid and, therefore, not sustainable in law. It is further submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was having the necessary permission for the entire period, when the offence alleged to have been committed.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of P. Pramila & Others. vs. State of Karnataka & Another reported in (2015) 17 SCC 651 wherein in the facts of that case, which relates to prosecution for the penalty for contravention of the Section 22 of the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 and Section 43 of the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 and the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 envisage that no court shall take cognizance of any offence under the said Act except on a complaint made by a Board or any officer authorized in this behalf by it and as in the facts of that case, there was a notification/resolution dated 29.03.1989 which indicated that the officer authorized as mentioned in Section 43 (1) (a) was the Chairman of the Board, but the complaint was filed and the proceedings were initiated before learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, by the Regional Officer, in his capacity as a complainant, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, has held that the Regional Officer had no jurisdiction to file such complaint, as Section 43 of the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981, vested the authority, to file complaints with the Board, and the said Section 43 also authorized the Board to delegate the above authority to any “officer authorized by it in this behalf” and thus “the officer authorized in this behalf” was not authorized as per the provisions of Secti