The Board, being a legal person, can sue and be sued in its own corporate name and can authorize its officers to act on its behalf in filing a complaint under Section 49 of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974.

( 1 ) PETITIONER No. 1 M/s. Lipton India Ltd. is a company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act, 1956, having its manufacturing Unit of Vanaspati at G. T. Road, Ghaziabad and petitioner No. 2 was the Factory Engineer of the Unit. This Unit in its process of manufacturing Vanaspati discharges certain trade effluents.

( 2 ) UNDER the provisions of Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as the, Act), no person can discharge trade effluents without the previous consent of the State Board, (constituted under the Act) (hereinafter referred to as the Board), therefore, the petitioner company applied for the consent of the Board for discharging trade effluents until such time that a proper plant for treatment of the trade effluents was made in order to satisfy the provisions of the Act.

( 3 ) ACCORDING to the petitioners, aforesaid application was made in the year 1983 and conditional consent was granted by the Board on 16-2-1983. Thereafter, petitioners applied from time to time to extend the consent until such time that its plant which was under construction was completed. The plant was completed in the year 1988. However, the petitioner has placed on record the consent accorded by the Board on 6-10-1988 and has not brought on record any document to substantiate that any consent was accorded by the Board prior to 6-10-1988.

( 4 ) FURTHER, according to petitioners, by an order dated 13-5-1988 Board refused to accord consent to the petitioners against which they preferred an appeal under Section 28 of the Act inter alia on the ground among others that the trade effluent was not being discharged in river Hindon rather it was being discharged in Dasna drain, Ghaziabad. It is alleged that the said appeal is still pending.

( 5 ) THE aforesaid appeal was filed by the petitioners on 9-6-1988 and prior-to that i. e. on 26-5-1988, the respondent No. 2 Board filed a complaint case through its Assistant Environment Engineer, (being Case No. 717 of 1988) in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ghaziabad, under Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for taking suitable action under Section 44 of the Act against petitioner company and its officers viz. Sri Alok Gupta, Factory Engineer, Sri Bipin Ratilal Shah, Chairman, Dr: Ranjan Banerjee Director, Sri C. J. Mahimkar Director, Sri P. J. M-Panikar Director; Sri J. G. H. Thwaites Director, Sri P. L. Brazier Directoi and Sri O. P. Agarwal, Secretary, alleging herein that they have committed offence within the meaning of the provisions of Section 44 of the Act.

( 6 ) THE Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ghaziabad having taken cognizance of the offence alleged under Section 44 of the Act, by his order dated 27-5-1988 issued process against all the accused persons.

( 7 ) AGAINST aforesaid order dated 27-5-1988 issuing process to the accused persons, all the accused persons including petitioners, preferred revision under Section 397, Cr. P. C. inter alia on the ground that there is no valid resolution of the Board in respect of prosecution of the revisionists. However, this ground did not find favour of revisional Court and the revision was rejected by an order dated 21-5-1992 against which present writ petition is filed claiming following reliefs : (a) an order, direction or writ in the nature of Certiorari quashing the order dated 21-5-1992 (container in Annexure- 8 to the writ petition) passed by the revisional Court. (b) an order, direction or writ in the nature of Certiorari quashing the complaint dated 26-5-1988 (Annexure- 5 to the writ petition) filed in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ghaziabad. (c) an order, direction or writ in the nature of Certiorari quashing proceedings in Case No. 717 of 1988 arising out of aforesaid complaint dated 26-5-1988. (d) an order, direction or writ in the nature of Mandamus restraining the respondent No. 2 from taking any action to prosecute the, petitioners 1 and 2.

( 8 ) BY an order dated 3