JUDGMENT

AMIT SHARMA, J.

1. The present petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.) seeks the following prayers:

“a) Set aside impugned order dated 15.05.2012 passed by Sh. Sanjeev Kumar, Ld. ASJ, District Court, Rohini in Crl. Revision Petition No.

21/2011 titled as Thomas Varghese Vs. Delhi Pollution Control Board.

b) Set aside and quash the summoning order dated 06.01.2011 qua the petitioner passed by Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate District Court Rohini Delhi in CC No. 01/11 titled as Delhi Pollution Control Committee Vs.

M/s Aditya Birla Retail Ltd. &Ors.

c) Pass such other and further order(s) which this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper in the interest of justice.”

2. The brief facts, necessary for the disposal of the present petition are set out as follows:

i. M/s Aditya Birla Retail Ltd., (hereinafter referred to as company) is duly incorporated under Indian Companies Act and has its retail stores spread all over the country. The petitioner was the CEO of the company at that time.

ii. The respondent no. 2 i.e., Delhi Pollution Control Committee (hereinafter referred to as „DPCC‟) had instituted a complaint against the petitioner, Sh. Vivek and Sh. Kapil Kumar Sharma, who were the CEO, Store In-charge and Store Manager (Finance) at that relevant point in time respectively, of the retail store named, „More Mega Store‟ of company located at City Central Mall, Sector-10, Rohini, New Delhi.

iii. It is alleged in the complaint that on 30.07.2010, DPCC conducted an inspection in the said retail store of company and found that the concerned persons were found using and were also involved in the storage of the plastic bags. Since the retail store was administered and managed by Sh. Vivek and Sh. Kapil (accused no. 3 and 4 respectively) at that relevant point in time, a complaint under Section 15, 16 and 19 of The Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 was filed by DPCC against them including the present petitioner and the company (accused no. 2 and 1 respectively) based on the inspection conducted by the former in the premises of the concerned retail store. It is further averred in the complaint that jute bags were also found at the store but were rarely used.

iv. On 06.01.2011, the learned Metropolitan Magistrate took cognizance of the offences alleged in the complaint against the accused persons named therein, and issued summons against all the accused persons as per Section 204 of the Cr.P.C.

v. Being aggrieved by the order passed by learned Metropolitan Magistrate, the present petitioner preferred a revision petition under Sections 397 and 399 of the Cr.P.C. assailing the summoning order in Criminal Revision No. 21/2011 which was dismissed by learned ASJ vide order dated 15.05.2012 and the order summoning the present petitioner alongwith other co-accused persons was upheld.

vi. Thus, the present petition has been filed challenging the impugned order dated 15.05.2012 passed by learned ASJ whereby the summoning order passed by learned Metropolitan Magistrate in complaint filed by DPCC was upheld.

Submissions on behalf of the Petitioner

3. Learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, on instructions, seeks determination of the present petition primarily on the ground of non-compliance/violation of Section 19 of Environment (Protection) Act, 1986. It was submitted that learned Metropolitan Magistrate was empowered to take cognizance of offence under the said Act only on the complaint made by the Central Government or any authority or officer authorized in this behalf by that Government. Attention of this Court was drawn to the notification dated 07.01.2009 whereby, Chairman and Member Secretary of DPCC were authorized by the Central Government to lodge the complaint under Section 19 of the Act, however, the present impugned complaint has been filed by one Shri M.S. Rawat, Assistant Environment Engineer, who admittedly, was authorized by the Chairman and Member Secretary but not by the Central Gover