The court held that a complaint under the Water Pollution Act must be filed by an authorized representative, and failure to comply with statutory procedures leads to quashing of proceedings.

JUDGMENT :

Gajendra Kumar, J.

1. Since these applications arise out of same complaint case, they have been heard together and are being decided by a common order. Application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. No. 40122 of 2023 is being treated as a leading case.

2. Counter and rejoinder affidavits filed today are taken on record.

3. Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 and learned AGA for the State.

4. The present applications have been filed by the applicants with the prayer to quash the entire proceedings of Complaint Case No.31 of 2013, under Sections 43 /44 of Water Pollution (Prevention and Control) Act, 1974, pending in the court of Special Judicial Magistrate, Pollution, Lucknow.

5. The genesis of the present applications arose when the opposite Party no.2 filed criminal complaint against the M/s Teerthanker Mahaveer University and other employees and directors of the same (hereinafter referred as "University"), before the learned Special Judicial Magistrate, Pollution, Lucknow with wholly false, concocted, and frivolous story. The university is a State minority University established by the society Teerthanker Mahaveer Institute of Management and Technology under the U.P. Act No. 30 of 2008, vide Government Order No. 154/Seventy-1-08-20 (13) / 2006 dated 06.02.2008, also all the construction of the University including the medical facilities in the same were constructed as per the norms of the concerned authorities, after taking the requisite permissions and sanction of plans.

6. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the applicants that the opposite party no. 2, (U.C. Shukla), is not authorized representative of U.P. Pollution Control Board (hereinafter to be referred as 'Board), who alleges that the University is knowingly discharging its noxious and polluted sewage, which met with the nala, which met with the septic tank stored in open pits which is likely to cause inland surface pollution by seepage, thereby causing continuous pollution on land in the stream. He further alleged that the University has not provided any sewage treatment plant to treat its waste in accordance with the standards laid by the board, and hence the accused has committed an offence u/s 24 and 25 of the Water Pollution (Prevention and Control) Act 1974 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act of 1974").

7. Further submission is that neither the applicants nor the University has acted at that particular time, had committed any offence as alleged in the complaint. Further submission is that the university has followed all the rules and regulations prescribed by law at the time of its establishment. Further submission is that as per the procedure as well as the perusal of the above-mentioned Government Order, it is evident that there is no requirement to take prior permission of the U.P. Pollution Control Board. Further submission is that the University being an educational institution cannot be treated as an industry and the rules applicable to the industries are not applicable to the university, however as one of the officials of the board visited the University and directed the University to obtain permission from the board and further directed to establish sewage treatment plant, under bona fide and good faith the University made an application for grant of permission on 20.05.2011, however the permission was rejected by the Board on 21.09.2011 as th