SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2015 Supreme(Online)(P&H) 666

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
BALJIT SINGH SANDHU – Appellant
Versus
PUNJAB POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD – Respondent



IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Reserved on: 10.02.2026 Date of Decision :12.02.2026 Col. Baljit Singh Sandhu ......Petitioner Versus Punjab Pollution Control Board ...... Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA PARTAP SINGH Present : Mr. G.S.Bhatia, Advocate and Mr. K.S. Rupal, Advocate for the petitioner.

Ms. Harpriya Khaneka, Advocate for the respondent.

SURYA PARTAP SINGH , J . (Oral) :

By virtue of this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court has been invoked for quashing of complaint No.6 dated 21.02.2014, filed by the respondent, and also the summoning order dated 12.05.2015 passed in the above mentioned complaint. The above mentioned complaint has been filed by the respondent against the petitioner and his co-accused, for the commission of offence punishable under Section 19 of the Environment (Protection) Act 1986. It has been alleged that the petitioner and his co-accused had violated the notification dated

14.09.2006.

2. Briefly stating that the facts emerging from record are that the above mentioned complaint has been filed by the respondent alleging that in exercise of the powers conferred by sub section (1) and clause (v) of sub section (2) of section 3 of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986, read with clause (d) of sub rule (3) of Rule 5 of the Environment (Protection) Rules, 1986, the Union Ministry of Environment & Forests had issued Environment Impact Assessment Notification, 2006, vide Notification no. S.O. 1533 (E) dated 14/9/2006, in supersession of Notification no. S.O. 60 (E) dated 27.1.1994. Vide above mentioned notice, it has been provided that new projects or activities or the expansion or modernization of existing projects or activities listed in the Schedule to the said notification shall be undertaken in any part of India only after the prior environmental clearance from the Central Government, or as the case may be by the State Level Environment Impact Assessment Authority, duly constituted by the Central Government under sub section (3) of section 3 of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986.

3. According to complainant the ‘M/s WWICS Estates Private Limited’, i.e. the accused no. 1, was established in the year 2001, for developing residential complex namely ‘Imperial Heights’ in the revenue estate of village Sante Majra, Tehsil Kharar, District SAS Nagar, Punjab. As per complainant, the accused no. 1 is an industry within the meaning of section 16 of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986, whereas the accused nos. 2 to 4, (Baljit Singh Sandhu, Sh. Devinder Sandhu and Dilraj Sandhu), are the Director/Subscriber of accused No. 1. As per complainant they all are incharge of and responsible for the conduct and day to day business/functioning of accused No.1. According to complainant, in view of their respective positions, they all are liable to be proceeded against in accordance with Law for the offences committed by the accused no.1, i.e. ‘M/s WWICS Estates Private Limited’, being directors of the company.

4. As per complainant during visit it was also observed that the colonizer of the abovementioned company started the construction over the site raising construction for the group housing project located in the residential zone as per Master Plan of Kharar, without obtaining environmental clearance under EIA notification, as total constructed area of the site was found to be more than 20,000 square meter. The complainant has further alleged that the above mentioned body was raising construction activities of the above mentioned building in violation of the provisions of Environment Protection Act, 1986. It has also been alleged by the complainant that the petitioner and other accused were illegally discharging partly treated effluent onto land, thus, degrading the environment, sub-soil and underground water intentionally &

deliberately.

5. In addition to above, it has also been alleged by the complainant that the petitioner and his co-acc

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top