Back
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW
BRIJ RAJ SINGH, J.
T.T. Ltd. through Occupier and others – Applicant
Versus
State of U.P. and others – Opposite Party(s)
APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 1253 of 2020
Decided On : 28-01-2026
Based on the provided legal document, the key points are as follows:
The application filed by T.T. Limited seeks to quash the entire proceedings of the criminal case initiated against it under the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974, including specific orders passed by different judicial authorities (!) (!) .
T.T. Limited is a company engaged in the manufacturing of yarn and fabrics, which claims to operate in an environmentally friendly manner without discharging effluent or pollution, and has obtained necessary permissions including a No Objection Certificate and consent under relevant sections of the Act (!) (!) .
The dispute arose after officials of the Pollution Control Board visited the factory premises without prior notice, collected samples from domestic sewage or residential colony septic tanks, and alleged that the company was discharging trade effluent without proper consent (!) .
The complaint was filed based on an inspection report indicating pollution and alleged violations of the Act, but there are contentions that the samples were improperly collected and that the samples tested were from domestic sewage, which does not constitute trade effluent under the law (!) (!) .
The applicants argue that the proceedings are invalid because the statutory formalities for sample collection were not followed, including the mandatory notice to the occupier or responsible person, and that the samples taken from residential sewage are not subject to the provisions concerning trade effluent (!) (!) (!) .
It is emphasized that the residential colony is located more than 500 meters away from the factory, and the samples from the septic tanks of the residential colony do not pertain to industrial effluent or trade effluent, making the criminal proceedings under Sections 43/44 of the Act not maintainable (!) (!) .
The legal provisions regarding the deemed approval of consent after a specific period and the responsibilities of the occupier and other directors are discussed, with the contention that the applicants have installed sewage treatment facilities and that the proceedings are based on incorrect assumptions about effluent discharge (!) (!) (!) .
The court recognizes that factual questions such as whether proper procedures were followed during sampling, whether consent was refused, and whether the effluent was from industrial or domestic sources are matters to be decided during the trial, not at this stage (!) (!) (!) .
Previous orders and observations by the court indicate that the issues raised are factual and require trial evidence, and that the court's jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. does not extend to weighing evidence or doing a mini-trial at this stage (!) (!) (!) .
The court concludes that the application for quashing the proceedings is without merit and dismisses it, but directs the trial court to facilitate the release of the applicants on personal bonds, considering their age and infirmity, and to expedite the trial proceedings, possibly through video conferencing if necessary (!) (!) .
In summary, the court's stance is that the legal and factual questions raised by the applicants are to be examined thoroughly during the trial, and at this stage, the proceedings cannot be quashed solely based on the preliminary arguments about procedural irregularities or the nature of the effluent samples.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. company's pollution mitigation and industrial process. (Para 2 , 4) |
| 2. allegations of complaint regarding trade effluent discharge. (Para 6 , 9 , 10) |
| 3. legal arguments regarding sewage treatment plant (stp) and trade effluent. (Para 11 , 12) |
| 4. court observes jurisdiction constraints in fact determination. (Para 13 , 14 , 15) |
| 5. application rejected; directions for trial proceedings. (Para 20 , 21) |
JUDGMENT
HON'BLE BRIJ RAJ SINGH, J.
1. The present application has been filed seeking quashing of the entire proceedings of Complaint Case No.368 of 2011, U.P. Pollution Control Board Vs. M/s T.T. Limited and others, under Section 43 /44 of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 (for short “the Act, 1974”) as well as the order dated 23.01.2020 passed by the IVth Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge, E.C. Act, Lucknow in Criminal Revision No.303 of 2015 and the orders dated 08.07.2015 and 19.02.2020 passed by the Special Judicial Magistrate, Pollution/C.B.I., Lucknow.
2. The facts giving rise to the present dispute are that applicant no.1, T.T. Limited, is a company having its registered office at 879, Master Prithvi Nath Marg, Opp. Azmal Khan Park, Karol Bagh, New Delhi engaged in the business of Cotton Yarn and Knitted Fabric. It carries out the non- polluting process of manufacturing yarn through its mill, namely, Gajroula Spinning Mill at Gajroula, which is 100% eco friendly and there is no use of water in the factory and as such no trade effluent is discharged from the factory. Applicant no.2 was the Chairman and Managing Director of the company at that time and he has engaged Sri. B.C. Jain, applicant no.5, as Factory Manager (Occupier) and Vice President (Technical), who was responsible for the day-to-day affairs of the Gajroula Unit. Applicant no.3 was the Director of the company at the relevant time and was not looking after the day-to-day activity of the Gajroula Unit. Applicant no.4 was the Secretary of the company at that time and he was also not looking after the day-to-day activity of the Gajroula Unit. Applicant no.5 was the Factory Manager (Occupier) and Vice President (Technical) of the company and was responsible for the day-to-day affairs of the Gajroula Unit. Applicant no.6 was the Director of the company at that time and he was not looking after the day-to-day activity of the Gajroula Unit. Applicant no.7 was the Vice President (Sales and Marketing) of the company at that time. Moreover, he is sitting and working at the Corporate Office, New Delhi only and has nothing to do with the day-to-day activity of the Gajroula Unit. Applicant no.8 was the Administrative Officer of the company at that time and he was also sitting and working at the Corporate Office, New Delhi and had nothing to do with the day-to-day activity of the Gajroula Unit and presently he is retired. Applicant nos.9, 10 and 11 were independent non-executive Directors of the company at that time and were not involved in day-to-day affairs of the company.
3. It is stated that the Companies Act, 1956 does not provide the specific definition of an independent Director, but independent Directors are non- executive Director of a company, who helps the company in improving corporate credibility and governance standards. It is pertinent to mention here that all the Directors of applicant no.1 are respectable personalities having good reputation in the society and applicant no.9 is the recipient of the Padam Shree Award.
4. It is further stated that applicant no.1 had established a residential colony 500 meters away from the factory for the residential purpose of the employees working in its factory at Gajroula. Further, establishment of applicant no.1 is engaged in the manufacturing of yarn from cotton, in which there is no scope of any kind of water pollution as there is no industrial use of water at all and there is no effluent generated, hence no trade effluent is being discharged. It is alleged that while establishing it
The court ruled that a complaint for discharging trade effluent is invalid without proper sampling processes and that evidence must be assessed at trial for factual determinations.
The Tribunal emphasized the principle of 'Polluter Pays' for environmental violations and mandated the imposition of compensation while acknowledging improvements made by the industry.
Environmental compliance is fundamental; violations can result in operational revocation and require remediation consistent with the 'Polluter Pays' principle.
Liability under criminal law requires specific roles to be established in the complaint; mere office holding is insufficient for conviction.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
