Allahabad High Court
M/S Sara International Thru. Its ... vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. ... on 26 September, 2025
Author: Saurabh Lavania
Bench: Saurabh Lavania
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:60629
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
LUCKNOW
APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 8424 of 2025
M/S Sara International Thru. Its Proprietor Mr. Dharmendra Kumar Gupta And Another
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And Another
.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s)
:
Sheeran Mohiuddin Alavi, Harsh Vardhan Kediya
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)
:
G.A.
Court No. - 11
HON'BLE SAURABH LAVANIA, J.
1. Heard Shri Aditya Vikram Singh holding brief of Shri Harsh Vardhan Kedia, learned counsel for the applicants, Shri Ajay Kumar Srivastva, learned A.G.A for the State and Sri Ashok Kumar Verma, learned counsel for the opposite party No. 2 and perused the record.
2. The present application u/s 482 CrPC has been filed seeking following main relief(s) :-
"i. Quash the entire proceedings of Complaint Case No. 2867/2018 (U.P. Pollution Control Board v. M/S Sara International & Ors.) pending in the Court of the learned Special Judicial Magistrate, Pollution/ C.B.I.. Lucknow (annexed as Annexure No. 2), as well as the summoning order dated 27.04.2019 passed by the learned Special Judicial Magistrate, Pollution/ C.B.I., Lucknow, Complaint Case No. 2867/2018 (U.P. Pollution Control Board v. M/S Sara International & Ors.) (annexed as Annexure No. 1), whereby, the Applicants have been summoned under Sections 43 of Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974, including all consequential proceedings arising therefrom."
3. Learned counsel for the applicants has submitted that in the similar facts, the co-ordinate bench of this court has allowed the application under section 482 No.953 of 2024 vide order dated 06.02.2024, which is extracted herein under:-
"1. Heard Sri Harsh Vardhan Kedia, Advocate holding brief of Sri Shubham Tripathi, the learned counsel for the applicants, Sri Anant Pratap Singh, learned A.G.A for the State and Sri Ashok Kumar Verma, the learned counsel for the opposite party nos. 2 and 3 and perused the records.
2. The present application u/s 482 CrPC has been filed with a prayer to quash the proceedings of Complaint Case No. 3239/2018 pending in the Court of Special Judicial Magistrate, Pollution/ CBI, Lucknow, as well as the summoning order dated 26.04.2019 passed by Special Judicial Magistrate, Pollution/ CBI, Lucknow, in Complaint Case No. 3239/2018, whereby the applicants have been summoned u/s 43 of Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 to be set aside as well as operation and implementation of the order dated 26.04.2019 passed by Special Judicial Magistrate, Pollution/ CBI, Lucknow in Complaint Case No. 3239/2018, whereby the applicants have been summoned u/s 43 of Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 as well as the entire proceedings of Complaint Case No. 3239/2018 pending in the Court of Special Judicial Magistrate, Pollution/ CBI, Lucknow be remain stayed during the pendency of the present petition.
3. Similar petitions have been disposed of by this court by order dated 27th September 2022 in application under section 482 No. 1079 of 2020 and other connected petitions, which reads as under:-
"2. In these petitions challenge has been made to prosecution launched by the U.P. Pollution Control Board in pursuance to the directions issued by National Green Tribunal, New Delhi.
3. National Green Tribunal, New Delhi vide order dated 08.08.2018 passed in Original Application Nos.231 and 2014 and 66 of 2015, in the matters of Doaba Paryavaran Samiti vs State of U.P. and others, inter alia in paras 7 to 13 observed as under:-
"7. On 12.07.2018, this Tribunal directed that those industries which are not complying with the standards should shutdown as suggested in the report of the Committee. 119 industries were found to be noncompliant. It is now stated that there is calculation mistake and the said number is 124. This Tribunal also directed stoppage of use of ground water contamination with mercury which was found to be happening as per the report of the Committee.
8. The statutory provisions particularly Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 contain penal provisions to deal with those who discharge pollutants in the water bodies. Section 44 read with Sections 25 and 26 of the said Act provide for minimum sentence of 1 year and 6 months and for repeat of the offence not less than two years. Inspite of categorical evidence there is no information whether any such prosecution has taken place against the alleged offenders in the present case. Unless the offenders are punished for serious offence of discharge of effluents in rivers and other water bodies, the pollution continues threatening the very existence of the inhabitants. There, is thus patent failure in performance of duty. Section 49 of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 provides for congizence of offence being taken at the instance of the Board or any officer authorised by the Board or by any other person after giving notice to the Board in the manner laid down. The law has entrusted important public duty but the statutory Boards are in breach of trust reposed in them.
9. Faced with the above, learned counsel appearing for Uttar Pradesh Pollution Control Board fairly stated that Uttar Pradesh Pollution Control Board will now initiate prosecution forthwith not later than six weeks from today against all those who are found to be responsible for discharge of effluents not meeting the prescribed standards.
10. The contaminated water near to any industry should itself alert the authorities that there is unauthorised discharge of effluents which is a justification to forthwith take steps to identify the culprit. Section 33A of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974, also provides for direction of closure, prohibition and regulation of any industry or its operation or process, wherever violation of law prohibiting discharge of effluents is found.
11. It is high time that the State Government must keep strict vigilance on the failure of the Pollution Control Board to determine whether such failure is on account of incompetence or dishonesty. Such responsibility must be overseen by the Chief Secretaries of all the States. They must be held accountable for the failure of the system wherever the Pollution Control Boards are found careless or wanting in performing their duties. The person responsible must be forthwith removed and proceeded against so as to be made accountable under the law. In case the habitants are not able get even potable water or fresh air, the guarantee of the Constitution of Right to Life itself is defeated. The State is thus under Constitutional obligation has to ensure that potable water is available to every citizen and very stern action is taken against any individual responsible for such contamination. After all, the water is a scarce source and has to be protected and used in a rational manner. Water is to be made available not only to few who can afford bottled water and mineral water but also to every citizen of the country. No citizen can be deprived of potable water and of right of breathing fresh air. Next generations cannot be deprived of this essential gift of nature, necessary for survival of life systems.
12. The sources of contaminated water are required to be closed so that the innocent citizens do not suffer in their health and if water is contaminated and unfit for consumption such warning should be displayed at appropriate places accordingly for information of the citizens.
13. We are also of the view that District Magistrates at the district level, Chief Secretaries of the States at State level and the CPCB at National level, in coordination with others, are required to prepare district level, state level and national level action plans for availability of potable water for the citizens and for a very effective mechanism for punishing the polluters. The action plan may also consider restoration of the water quality where pollution is already taking place. Such data must be published on the website of States and Districts as to what extent water quality has been improved in a particular period."
4. Mr.Ashok Kumar Verma, learned counsel appearing for the U.P. Pollution Control Board does not dispute this fact that the prosecutions against the petitioners have been launched in pursuance to the directions issued by National Green Tribunal. Some of the companies had approached the Supreme Court by filing Civil Appeals against the directions issued by the N.G.T., New Delhi and the Supreme Court has stayed the directions of initiating the criminal prosecutions in pursuance to the said order dated 08.08.2018 passed by the National Green Tribunal. Final decision is yet to be taken by the Supreme Court as the matter is still subjudiced regarding legality and validity of the directions issued by the National Green Tribunal, New Delhi.
5. Considering the aforesaid facts and submission, these petitions are disposed of with a direction that impugned criminal proceedings shall be kept in abeyance till final decision of the Supreme Court in pending Civil Appeals against the order dated 08.08.2018 passed by N.G.T., New Delhi. In case Supreme Court upholds the direction, the prosecutions shall go on subject to the remedies available to the petitioners under the law. In case the Supreme Court set asides the directions issued by the N.G.T., prosecutions would come into an end. However, it would be open to the Pollution Control Board to initiate a fresh prosecution, if it finds that there are violations of any law by any of the parties."
4. The learned counsel for the applicants has submitted that the present case is squarely covered by the aforesaid order.
5. The learned counsel for the opposite party nos.2 and 3 does not dispute this fact.
6. Accordingly the present application is also allowed in terms of the aforesaid order dated 27.09.2022 passed in Application u/s 482 Cr.P.C No. 1079 of 2020, which is quoted above."
4. Learned counsel for the applicants has submitted that present case is squarely covered by the aforesaid order, therefore, similar benefit may be extended to the applicants also.
5. Learned counsel for the opposite parties have not disputed the above fact.
6. Accordingly, the present application under Section 482 Cr.P.c. is allowed in terms of the aforesaid order 06.02.2024 passed in Application U/S 482 No.953 of 2024 (Satish Jain and another Vs. State of U.P. and 02 others).
7. The proceedings of Complaint Case No.2867/2018 (U.P. Pollution Control Board v. M/S Sara International & Ors.), pending in the Court of Special Judicial Magistrate, Pollution/C.B.I., Lucknow (Annexed as Annexure No.2), including the summoning order dated 27.04.2019, passed by the Special Judicial Magistrate, Pollution/C.B.I., Lucknow in Complaint Case No. 2867/2018 (U.P. Pollution Control Board v. M/S Sara International & Ors.) (Annexed as Annexure No. 1), whereby the applicants have been summoned to face trial under Sections 43 of Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974, are hereby quashed.
(Saurabh Lavania,J.) September 26, 2025 ML/-