Supreme Court - Daily Orders
Karnataka State Pollution Control ... vs D.H. Raya on 30 January, 2015
Bench: T.S. Thakur, Adarsh Kumar Goel
1
ITEM NO.37 COURT NO.2 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). 2228/2013
(Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 18/01/2012
in CRLP No. 831/2007 passed by the High Court Of Karnataka At
Bangalore)
KARNATAKA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
D.H. RAYA & ANR. Respondent(s)
(with appln. for recalling the court's order dated 15.09.2014 and
27.10.2014 and stay and office report)
Date : 30/01/2015 This petition was called on for hearing today.
CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.S. THAKUR
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL
For Petitioner(s) Mr, Shankar Kumar V.Mahale, adv.
Mr. Amith J., Adv.
Mr. Rajesh Mahale,Adv.
For Respondent(s) Mr. Uday B. Dube,Adv.
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since respondent No. 1 has already retired from service, no useful purpose may be served by continuing these proceedings based on CC No. 489 of 2006 filed by Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by Shashi Sareen the petitioner against him especially when the High Date: 2015.02.06 10:56:35 IST Reason: Court has granted liberty to the petitioner to continue the proceedings against the respondent (The Town 2 Municipal Council, Challakere, Chitradurga District. He submits that apart from continuing the complaint against Municipal Council any fresh complaint which the petitioner may file against the Municipal Council or against its officers guilty of violating the provisions of The Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 should not be prejudiced by the observations made by the High Court.
Learned counsel for respondent No. 1 has no objection to any such liberty being granted to the petitioner-Board. In the circumstances and keeping in view the fact that Respondent No. 2, Municipal council has remained absent despite service, we see no reason why these proceedings cannot be disposed of with the liberty prayed for by learned counsel for the petitioner.
We accordingly dispose of this petition with liberty to the petitioner-Board to continue the proceedings filed against the respondent-council or to file a fresh complaint if the commission of the offence continues not only against the Municipal Council but also all such persons/officials legally responsible for same.
(Shashi Sareen) (Veena Khera)
Court Master Court Master
3