The court established that statutory exemptions for industrial sheds, along with undue delay in prosecution, render the charges unsustainable.

ORDER :

1. This Criminal Original Petition has been filed seeking to quash the proceedings in C.C. No.128 of 2024, pending on the file of the learned District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Uthukuli, Tiruppur District.

2. The case of the prosecution is that the accused have constructed and are operating premises situated at S.F. No.505/1 part, 3 part, 4 part, 506/1 part, 2 part, 3 part and 507/1 part, 2 part of Chengapalli Village, Uthukuli Taluk, Tiruppur District, without obtaining prior Environmental Clearance from the State Environment Impact Assessment Authority (hereinafter referred to as “SEIAA”) which is punishable under Sections 15 r/w 16 and 19(a) of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has been arrayed as the third accused (A3). The building in question was constructed by A1 and measures 20,000 sq. metres. The premises were subsequently sold to A3, namely, the petitioner herein. The project falls under Entry 8(a) of the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Notification. As per the said notification, building and construction projects exceeding 20,000 sq.m. but below 1,50,000 sq.m. shall not include industrial sheds, schools, colleges, or hostels for educational institutions. It is contended that the premises acquired by the petitioner qualifies as an “industrial shed”, as defined under Notification No.S.O.3252(E), dated 22.12.2014, which exempts such structures from the requirement of obtaining Environmental Clearance, provided they fall within the “White Category” of industries as notified by the Central Pollution Control Board (hereinafter referred to as “CPCB”). The petitioner’s industry is non-polluting and classified under the White Category, as per CPCB’s Letter No. B-29012/ESS/CPA/2015-2016, dated 07.03.2016.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner further relies on the circular issued by the respondent dated 19.08.2022, which categorically states that Environmental Clearance shall not be insisted upon for industrial sheds. This position has also been reaffirmed in the Office Memorandum dated 04.10.2022, issued by the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change, in F.No.19-131/2019-IA-III. Therefore, the petitioner is entitled to benefit conferred by legislation without inflicting a corresponding determinant on some other person by giving retrospective effect. The learned counsel states that after completion of the project, an application for Environmental Clearance was submitted on 28.11.2023. However, the same is still pending before the SEIAA. It was noted that the application was placed in the 565^th Authority Meeting held on 31.10.2022, but no final decision has been rendered.

5. It is further submitted that the alleged violation was detected only after a lapse of 11 years, and prosecution has now been initiated based on such stale cause of action, which is arbitrary and amounts to abuse of process of law. In support of this contention, reliance was placed on a batch of quash petitions decided by this Court in Crl. O.P. No. 6241 of 2014, etc. dated 22.12.2023, wherein similar allegations were considered and the proceedings were quashed. The learned counsel also submitted that though the second accused had filed a petition in Crl. O.P. No. 28129 of 2024 seeking to quash the very same proceedings, which was dismissed by this Court on 03.02.2025, the grounds raised in the present petition were not raised in that petition, and therefore, were not considered by this Court.

6. The learned Standing Counsel for the Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board would submit that the accused constructed and operated premises without obtaining prior Environmental Clearance fr