The legal requirement for sampling procedure under Section 21 must be followed in order for enforcement actions under Section 33 to be valid.

1. M/s. Delhi Bottling Co. Pvt. Ltd. (for short 'the Company'), petitioner No.1, has been carrying on the business of preparation of soft drinks under the trade names Gold Spot, Limca, Thums Up, Rimzim and Soda Water etc. at their factory premises No. 60, Shivaji Marg, New Delhi. They are discharging trade effluents which ultimately fall in the stream i.e. river Yamuna. Shri S. K. Arya, petitioner No.2, is the Plant Manager of the Company. The Company duly obtained consent order under the provisions of S.25 and S.26 of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 (for short 'the Act'). A complaint under S.33(1) of the Act was filed by the Central Board for the Prevention and Control of Water Pollution, respondents, against the petitioners. It was alleged that the Company has neither put up the treatment plant, nor has started any preliminary step in that regard. It was further alleged that a sample of the trade effluents of the Company was lifted by the officials of the Board on May 16, 1984 in the presence of Mr. D. L. Khosla, a representative of the Company, and the sample on analysis has been found as not conforming to the parameters of the consent order of the Company. It was prayed that the Company be restrained from causing pollution by discharge of trade effluents till the company sets up the required treatment plant and conforms to the quality of trade effluents according to the parameters as provided in the consent order. Shri Naipal Singh, Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi, after obtaining the reply of the petitioners to the complaint of the respondents and after hearing the parties, passed the impugned order dt. Aug. 8, 1984 accepting the application of the respondents and restraining the petitioners from causing pollution of the stream by discharging the trade effluents till the required treatment plant is set up and conforming the quality of trade effluents according to the standards prescribed by the Board in its consent order as renewed on November 26, 1981. Feeling aggrieved by this order of the learned Metropolitan Magistrate the petitioners have filed this petition under S.482, Cr. P.C.

2. Mr. R. Mohan, learned counsel for the respondents, submitted that for passing an order under S.33 of the Act there is no need that the samples of the effluents must be lifted from the factory premises and got analysed as per the provisions of S.21 of the Act. As such, it was not necessary for the officials of the Board to divide the sample lifted into two parts and to get the same analysed from the laboratory established by the Delhi Administration as per the provisions of S.21(4) of the Act. The learned Magistrate has not dealt with this aspect of the matter in his impugned order. However, I think that it is necessary to go into this question for a proper decision of the case. Mr. Mohan submitted that as per S.33 of the Act the Board has the power to lift a sample on a ground other than the one that the water in the stream is polluted by reason of disposal of any matter therein or of any likely disposal of any matter therein. It is submitted that that being so and S.21 being confined to the lifting of samples only when the stream is likely to be polluted by reason of disposal of any matter therein or of any likely disposal of any matter therein, provisions of S.21 do not come into operation for lifting of a sample for the purposes of getting an order under S.33 of the Act. I do not find any force in this submission. The Scheme of the Act shows that S.21 is a provision of general application governing the matter of lifting of samples in all cases including the cases for the purpose of obtaining an order under S.33 of the Act. The heading of S.2