IMPORTANT POINT
A company must be included as an accused in environmental violation cases for vicarious liability to be applicable to its officers.

JUDGMENT :

Rakesh Thapliyal, J.

1. All these applications preferred under Section 482 CrPC are being decided together with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties.

2. By all these Applications, preferred under Section 482 CrPC, the applicants are challenging the proceedings of Criminal Case No. 6124 of 2022, Uttarakhand Pollution Control Board Vs. Masood Mallick and others, pending in the Court of IIIrd Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dehradun, District Dehradun. In addition to the proceedings, the applicants are also challenging the orders dated 09.11.2022, 06.01.2023, 30.09.2023 and 20.11.2023.

3. By order dated 09.11.2022, the learned IIIrd Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate took cognizance on the complaint filed by respondent No. 2 on 02.09.2022 and summoned all the applicants for the offences punishable under Section 44 of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974, as well as for the offences punishable under Section 37 of the Air (Prevention of Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 and also for the offences punishable under Section 15 of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986.

4. The order dated 09.11.2022 has been challenged on the ground that as per the allegations, as alleged in the complaint, in fact, the allegations are against the company, known as M/s Dehradun Waste Management Pvt. Ltd. (DWMPL in short), but the company has not been made as accused in the complaint.

5. It is submitted that only the office bearers and the management persons being in-charge of & responsible to the Company for conduct of businesses of the company, are made accused in the complaint.

6. In para 9 of the complaint, it is further alleged that the accused company i.e. DWMPL had violated the terms and conditions as prescribed under the Consolidated Consent and Authorization (CCA), accordingly, they were served with directions for show-cause under Section 33-A of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974, and Section 31-A of the Air (Prevention of Control of Pollution) Act, 1981, vide notice dated 09.02.2019 and subsequently, the inspection was carried out on 01.08.2019 by the officers of the complainant Board in the presence of the project representatives of the accused company, being Shri R. Prabhakar and Shri Harshit Kumar.

7. The officers of the Board vide their inspection report dated 14.08.2019 have found that the accused company has not complied with the direction issued as per the show-cause notice dated 09.04.2019 and along with the report, the photographs of the site and the violations were also duly indicated, which were sent to the Head Office vide letter dated 16.08.2019. Thereafter, the Head Office of the complainant Board, vide letter dated 07.09.2019 had directed that the Regional Office to assess the amount of environmental compensation, caused due to the non-compliance by the accused company.

8. It is argued by Mr. Arvind Vashisth, the learned Senior Counsel for the applicant that as per the allegations alleged in the complaint, the allegations are, in fact, against the company, but the company is not made an accused in the complaint.

9. In reference to this, Mr. Arvind Vashisth, the learned Senior Counsel submits that if the offences are committed by the company, then in view of Section 16 of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986, it is mandatory that the company should be made a party in the complaint, but, here in this case, though the allegations, as alleged, are against the company, but the company is not made an accused.

10. In support of his argument, the learned Senior Counsel for the applicants place reliance on a judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sharad Kumar Sanghi Vs. Sangita Rane, 2015 (12) SC 781, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that if the allegations are against the company and company has not been arrayed as a party, no proceeding can be initiated against it even where vicarious liability is fastened on certain statutes.

11. It is further