Supreme Court - Daily Orders
Ben Guren vs Regional Officer, Haryana Pollution ... on 28 March, 2016
Bench: Jagdish Singh Khehar, C. Nagappan
1
ITEM NO.19 & 50 COURT NO.3 SECTION IIB
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No(s). 2181/2016
(Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 05/11/2015
in CRMM No. 29012/2015 passed by the High Court Of Punjab & Haryana
At Chandigarh)
BEN GUREN Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
REGIONAL OFFICER, HARYANA POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD, DHARUHERA
REGION, PANCHKULA Respondent(s)
(with interim relief)
WITH
SLP(Crl) Nos. 2186/2016 and 2240/2016
(With Interim Relief and Office Report)
Date : 28/03/2016 These petitions were called on for hearing today.
CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C. NAGAPPAN
For Petitioner(s) Mr. K.K.Venugopal, Sr. Adv.
Mr. L.Nageshwara Rao, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Gopal Sankaranarayanan, Adv.
Mr. Jayant Kumar Mehta,Adv.
Mr. Deepesh Aneja, Adv.
Ms. Shradha, Adv.
Ms. Zeeshan Diwan, Adv.
For Respondent(s)
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R
Learned counsel for the petitioner(s) has placed reliance on Dhariwal Tobacco Products Limited vs. State of Maharashtra, (2009) 2 SCC 370, and more particularly, to the observations recorded in paragraphs 12 and 14, which are extracted hereunder: Signature Not Verified
“12. It is interesting to note that the Bombay Digitally signed by PARVEEN KUMAR Date: 2016.03.28 High Court itself has taken a different view. In a 17:10:19 IST Reason: decision rendered by the Aurangabad Bench of the Bombay High Court, a learned Single Judge in Vishwanath Ramkrishna Patil (2006) 5 Mah. LJ 671, where a similar question was raised, opined as under: (Mah LJ pp. 675-675, paras 10-12) 2 “10...It is difficult to curtail this remedy merely because there is a revisional remedy available. The alternate remedy is no bar to invoke power under Article 227. What is required is to see the facts and circumstances of the case while entertaining such petition under Article 227 of the Constitution and/or under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code. The view therefore, as taken in both the cases V.K. Jain (2005) 30 Mah. LJ 778 and Saket Gore, no way expressed total bar. If no case is made out by the petitioner or the party to invoke the inherent power as contemplated under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code and/or the discretionary or the supervisory power under Article 227 of the Constitution of India they may approach to the Revisional Court, against the order of issuance of process.
11. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of those cases, the learned Judge has observed in V.K. Jain and Saket Gore that it would be appropriate for the parties to file revision application against the order of issuance of process. There is nothing mentioned and/or even observed that there is total bar to file petition under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code and/or petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
12. The Apex Court's decision already referred to above, nowhere prohibited or expressly barred to invoke Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code or Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order of issuance of process.” xxx xxx xxx xxx
14.In our considered opinion V.K. Jain does not lay down a good law. It is overruled accordingly.” Issue notice.
Further proceedings before the trial Court shall remain stayed, in the meanwhile.
(Renuka Sadana) (Parveen Kumar) Court Master AR-cum-PS