M/S National Mineral Development ... vs Karnataka State Pollution Control ... on 17 June, 2009

[Cites 8, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

M/S National Mineral Development ... vs Karnataka State Pollution Control ... on 17 June, 2009

Bench: N.Ananda

IN ms. area coum' as KAR!IATAK«A '  ~
cmcurr amen AT    VZ %%
DATED TI-1:8 mm 17th       
sr;F*oRE 2   i A F' k
ms Hoxmm MR.J1,§i.-vncﬁ mmmnj    'V
CR11ﬁI!i'AL'"'P.E TI'I'i{5K '%§o§2991IéwsA"%
BETWEEN:  '  A " A A'
M13. Nationai Cbrpéfaﬁen Ltd.
Kumar  I;5::+'13_,nZ)V1:'i:*«P\?£;_i11es 4_  " 
ML N0.11;'};1,p_E{ai:t8;ijher§§uv'%'i}}.*ézge2_V  '
Sandur 'I'ai3,11<,.EE-f_¢}3ary' f)i'si_:1:"3.c"t"" '

Rcprescntrqd  by its.
Genﬁral Maﬁsiggtg Sti.  

 »   _  ...PE'I"I'I'IﬁHER
(By  Sui:dara$v;%an1y'Ramdas 8:. Anand, Advocates)

        

'  PoI1uti01:1'<30n§'oI Boaxd

No. 49, '  Bhavam

" Chrurch $i1*eé=t, %I1ga1<:sre 560 091

  'A  --~ 583 103

@:pr:$t£1_t£¢dA by its Environmentai Oﬁeer
Karnaiaka State Poliumm Central %a;rd
Regbnai Omen, N<:.~.'?, W.No.,1, I={.H.B Solony

...RE3}'OH3)EK'T'

 ?{By Sari. K. S. Patil, Advacate)



This Cum' ina} Petitien is filed under  V
Cr.P.C praying tut) quash the compiaint again.s't._t11t2jpctEtioa¢r ' «

in ac 910.402/2005 on the file of C.J.(Jr.~£)ﬁ~..) as JMFC',= ~.

Sandur am} set aside the oxxir;-r""'<i:.A 23.0_4.21'}f}5 passed
therein.     C   

This petition coming Qnfor   déiy;Vih§é" \'
Court made the following:  " V V _   " 

   %s2.I3'*D W 

The petitimer  as  Cc No.402[ 2005

pending   Section 15 and

19 of'"Eiivirr§isméi5t:;"(P§t2t§ctio:£%"Ac£), 1986 on the file of Civil
Jt1dge *Jr.: Divisﬁoﬁ  Sandur, has ﬁled this petition to

quash  pﬁéading therein inter alia contenéing

 '~   ofAAit:ev._.§:1dgement of the Supreme Court reported

'   4016 (in case of M. C. ﬁehta vs. Union of

 of wmplaim acceptad on their face vaiue

d=o'4ia:;tV"e::g>:r;isi'titute oﬁencés aileged against petiticmer

;  2. I haw: heard Shri Hagananda Sumiaraswamy,

fgcarned Samar Counsel for pvetiﬁoncr and Shri K. S. Patil,

R "learned Counsel for res§onﬁ6:1:;.t:. (£



: 4 :
nctiﬁcation adated 27.01.1994 is applicable also 'W1Q,E?.1."€ the
rexxewal of mining lease is considared aﬁer athc
noﬁﬁcatjon. The concluéing wrtion ofjudmezrgf' V' 2
Conclusion:    ._   '.  2 u
1.

The order dated 6rh¥__Mz.~;y, .fL2{>~:;2. 'am hexeinbefore cannot be Gaifafcd °.'49i<:"fo1i.=;= consideration of .%;~¢poﬁV._ .<}f..Aﬁ1eV"'--:vh}I6r1ito1ingV' Ctzmmittee C§)nS{it!1tt:§'i:'§u\}' j1i<i§t1:z§;z:1:?;.7

2. The noﬁﬁcafinn of . 'c;:1r;f¢'1_Ar94t;;u:111¢=:nt assessment ciearancez dated. is applicable a1so4_§$7h.c11 géﬁéwdl c§f«:x;1i_nii3.g:.Ii2ase is considered V [V iséigé ndﬁﬁééﬁvn.

'-- Onv case, the mining activity 011 '« ;';'a.1*r:a?s":::§i¥¥i=A51'"c,5 Section 4 anél or 5 of Punjab Act, 1900 cannot be unéertaken yvith:§vi:'tv3;t3pmva1 under the Forest (C0;::s€rvation} _ Aﬁt, 1930.

V 1 'V activity can be csaztried {mt on araa over plantaﬁon has been nndamaken under projcci: by uﬁiiizaiéon of foreiﬁ funds. The mining activity can be permitted only an thﬁ basiﬁ of sustainable ésvelopment and on compiimzce af atringcnt conditions.

6. '§'he Aravalli hill range has to be protected at any cost. In case ciespitrr stringent conciiticzn, there is 31:: adverse irreversible effect on the ecologr in the av .,£\/~«-ﬁ'--'ﬂ~""--""' :5: Amvaiii hill range area, at a laier €?_éfgi;3_;' Stoppage of mining activity in the to be conséﬁamd. For rcascris' .. 9 ham to be considered.' in c>f_ J Faxiéabasi Distrrict as we)[i.__

7. MOE? is dimcted king': L' texm actien plaﬁ' xtjstdgation of 6}C1ViI'()I}.InC13;fﬁ}._ équaiifjr jé iiiﬂs Gurgaon district haviﬁg .rege3;f§1 vto. '1%é1:s.f.t"»i$ stated in ﬁnal ~ report of crvm-1" %_;:gé;;%:;::s.

3. vicgraispig nf:1anyGf;the::.¢ti1aditi§$ns would entail the " lease. The mining " on 3t1:'ict ammplzm Ce of = {E13 éiifgjzﬂatcﬁ-Tgéaéiitions." h 4. 'I'*'h.a._ 3z;i;:mémé" Court while deaiing with the V, _ 'aﬁﬁﬁcabiiity of "f11é"'i:btiﬂcation to the existing lease h(}1{1CI'S H '33: No: doubt, thc zmtiﬁcation is H "' p;*ds'ﬁective but the questing} here is whether it viroukl '¥;3«E: smplicahic when the aspect of renewal comﬁs up far consicieration after the issue of the nctiﬁcaﬁon, In NaImacia's case, it was not heid that this; notsiﬁcaﬁon will not appiy at the stage at" renewal. T he observ:-1t:io3:1s'ma;:1e £31 para 129 of the said decision and relied: aspen by learned counsel for the }.{i':aSf: :7:

supemadcd by the subsequent ::1otiﬁca_§(_>_':1'1.VV':' 27.12.2000, wherein time was extended up anal later the time was extcndeci u'g'iHfd3E

6. The instant "

contravention of the notiiﬁgiﬁgxﬁ during the period beﬁ;z€€'n 'a;1d 3.5.2004 (the dam on which_th.e jgééls issued to the peiitioncr-¢Qi§iﬁ§£%§.3}}. it 3: " v§._n.T~ the complaint that clearancei ' to "péﬁtioner~company/during the jj¢ar__ in nature. Therefore, the by pci:itio1:1cr~company fmm the date 'of 1:1<§.i:if:v(;aticSn i:'.a1¥:ci 2'?',G}.1994 till the issuance of .cV'1;6..'a.raE'=n g,~a*:VVM' i.t:., on 29.10.2004, were in ief notiﬁcaﬁon dated 27.01.1994 ptmishahka i1_w;__ﬁie1j 15 of the Envimnmcnt (Protection Act), 1986. Shari Nagananda Sunémaswamy, leanzlcd Sr. for petiticzxzcr has madt: the folkowing submisskms: i. In case of M. C. Mehta vs. Unizm af India ( AIR QGQ4 94$ 4916), the: Supreme: Court has dmlt W ,;_.;_£,___W,,.9.,.a.c>{.:;,..m V with the applicability of noa'_'&ca.ti{;1.i ' 27m.1%4 to the existing C the operative portion," 73196' held that the noﬁﬁcaﬁién applicable to sjwhc1:i"

renewai O? is' éonsidémd after issuance pctitiomtr was ggsﬁiad E372 for a period rr1g.ere§£;.f¢f% ;£ §;ad to be renewed application for mnewal ° §:21.99.2ooo. 'rh¢ clﬁarance from ..i3'{;}i}V.:1fii<$o§:1.V_b' C;5i1ﬁ0i Board was obtained ﬁom The lease was renewed on §}4,03.2005 with Ittmspccﬁve effect; from V' ;_ é;=3.o2.20»02.

z The petitioner had applied for the ciearancc certiﬁcate in terms :31' tht judgment of Suymmc Court in case of M. C'. Mehta vs. Union of India ( AIR 2004 SC 4016) 313$ also in terms of subsequent notiﬁcaﬁons dated ()5.,1 1.1998 and Wuﬁm pwaé my .« ah;

31.03.1999. The averments accepted an their faccwvalue .ii()'£§0Il4$fifiil1t{'§". oﬁences aiieged agaiigzsti---ta}: A ":'?.§'._.te petitioner is a company" * Government ofI:;1;i'L';'.*21_V'A:r::.31_V<:¥ tﬁé--®§phjnt ﬁled is 110%: in aétéivardaﬁcg v'"%ip§VV:'..'13C€ﬁ0ﬂ 16 of the Environmenﬁ .. 986. The 2"' accfzsﬁd wihog £113 'réiaztrazit time, working as "fPm<iuction) of the 1*' T' - arrayed as an empiayec " of 'ill'-» odmﬁiaint, it is not averted that 2"' zzgrcusevciwixamely Shn' C. Soundarajan, at the ﬁfjétmcc " £i1;;;;§{i~~a11¢ged dwel' Qzas con:1z:m'ttc:d fwas directly in iv.

. of and was responsible tea, the company for ccnduct of business of the company as Wei} as :11: cempany.

The 211d accused is a public servant anﬁ he is alleged having crommittmzi oﬁimces in discharge R)» 'Q Q./2/'L-£i«ix..

:10: of his oﬁcial capacity. Therefiue, of vaiid sanction in terms of ., the Tmlal Court ought cognizance of the o_ﬁ"ence's_ against. étccuéxed. The learned Sr. QIE)'.--.'|VVt'I:).';'.§€_3i. judgment of Suprerrxe'5011?':_fep§fte§i..'§;i1--..(2m9) 1 sec '?{)6 (ingﬂzg cttjsVéV't>j€:V:;'.IIVc;iPziVf1::i'1ﬁ§'.}?!?I2¥Izindra Financial magi. v. Rajiv Dubey), power under Section 482 .V}V1V:éis:=-1;<:>"be'-.e3(emi,$ee:i to quash the proceedings, Vewhen of the complaint accepteti on theifvface value do not constitute any offences at; V' continuation of the prosecution would be .AV.T'§::!:$i1se 0:" process of Court. _ .. Iearned Cotmsel for the msponéetat xeiying on " " {he jedment of Supreme Court reported in (2009) 2 SCC (in the case cf U.P.Pof!uticm. Ccmtroi Board :2. Br. Bfzupencira Kumar Mode and mother), has contendeé that there shall be strict appmach by the Cmm; while dealing I! 3%.

:11: with the oﬁcnders causing air and Water pollutigiii' shall be stricﬂy dealt with dehors technica.1 itic$ £5»; proceedings shall not ha quashed in _ T

9. I have gene thmugﬁ ave1ﬁxg§'t§_ I1:;» the complaint, it is sated f5t3.at::'pcﬁtjpne.14--":ﬁ§_ac§;i1se£3. is a Govemment of India accused is an amployec of age __:st ﬁe 1st accused- <:€.>mpany the year $991. It is étlcarancc certiﬁcate was issuécg to dated 29.10.2004.

_ it that cicarance certiﬁcate perspective. Therefore, the pctmoner -- ' ac{;i1s;ét§M iée'as czamying on mining activiﬁcs Withaut holding ..C§;ftfﬂ'icate from the date of notiﬁcation dated till 29.£G.2(}04. Thus 18* accused ~ company oﬁ'ence$ pzmishablﬁ under Secﬁon 15 of E';3:1'v1: 'r0nmc11t (Protection Act), 1986. I13. the ccamplaint there is reference to the judgment of Supreme Court in case of M'. C. Mehia 2:3. {Inion of Ind£c2( AIR 2004 SC 4616). ) fvﬂ ""~v' __ £4. \v*'d\..._. " ., :12:

10. Fmm the avermcnts of compiaint, that complainant has misconceivggzi the = Supreme Court. In the above juci,gJn¢ﬁf3 has deait with the applicezirﬂﬁty {if ~ [, 27.01.3994 in relation to tl?:.t=:'V'Véx._ix:'~:>;*7;.i1_}g As per conclusion No.2 fstateéi lééééiioiders axe required to obtain ivhen they seek renewal V E 1. had applied for g'a,}:1ti_of__ within the time stipulated under The prctzitiomrr had alsgf 'o'btai11e;d'-=<:1§c;a:;anﬁ$e éertiﬁcate fmm the Pollution Contra} rd. f§§Vix.'_¢Gnsid§fati0n of these documents, the mi11:i1}g Vlﬂasﬁ' pctitioner~cc;>mpany was rczmwed on rcﬁnspectivsz eﬂitct ﬁom 18.02.2002.

" 12. The complaint was ﬁkd against accused No.1 :2 alleging cenﬁavenﬁan of notiﬁcation dateé 27.01.1994» ' V' "punishable: under Section :3 of the Environmczxt (Protection :13: Act), 1986. The 13' accused is a company.

deals with {)ﬁ'enccs by companies wads ' L. "Oﬁences by companies --- 1 this Act has been commitfcd::.:bj?T .':i:t?:_'.iA3':Vt*K;1'~'}_* person who, at the _vthe u.ifi"é13.ce * was dimcﬂy in charge wéS~.I'§is§}é)n§i§)1e to, the company for mg' £':>uf"'=._i.:l1e 'biisinéés of the company, as well ﬁis. thg shall be deemcé to be gui1ty_or f11§::....o _ﬁ:*:Vx1<;,-V:_ﬁ be liable to be provided that fh isVVsub-sectiora shall render anyv punishment provided in this _ that the offence was committed zwit}:;;<)t1Vt or that he exercised all cine dﬂigcfice the commission of such cﬁcnce. ' 'V (3) Noni'itﬁéfaaﬁ.mg anything contained in sub-section {E}, where oﬁence under this Act has been V' " _ by a company anti it is proved that the ' u$6ii'é3:3ct§;;.Vf1as been committed Wiih the consent or gﬁaigxxiisance of, or is attributable to any neglect on the " of, any director, manager, secmtary or other AA ; (Smear of the mmpany, such director, maxzager, secretary or other oﬁcer shall alse be detained to be guilty 0f that oﬁence and shall be liable to he proceeded against and punished accoxdingly." m . c*~§»~4>W~'''{''* » :14:

13. In the instant complaint, it is accused is an employee of the company. It the time of alleged oﬁences has the 'E195 aceuseé :1.»-1» was direetiy imzharge of, and wa::A;.._[ fes;56n é.1'b1e«. company for the conduci ofixnsiness of .-is well' as the company. The law -»we11'sAeit1ed..v'§t.hat when complaint is ﬁled for by company, there shall be pmpe:'V'IjepIe3é1E1i;za§§0ﬁ;1 and in the comp1a1'nt__ employee of the at the time offence was conaaxﬁiited, ivasi of, and was responsible to, the eempéijiy forVVt}1eA'-eoixsfiuuct of business of the company as '3 V' 'I .. ..... .. 'V 3 1 ~ VV"!j:erefoz'e, I am of the considemii opinion that 'th_eVVave;1iie§.j_1te of the eemplaint accepted on their face value do net. establish contravention of notiﬁcation dated A "ii" 1994 punishahie under Section 155 of the Envimnment ;§Proi:ection Act), 1986. The petitioner had obtained clearaﬁce (certiﬁcate as required under notiﬁcatien dated 2'?g€}1.I994 7m terms of judgment of the Supreme Court in M gem :15: case of M. C. Mehta vs. Union of India ( AIR There are no averments in the complaint iii' 'Gf t3§;ctio1'"r , 16 (if the Act to proceed against

15. In View of the V"

Counsel for respondeglt that--VVﬁ§eﬁﬁ9nc¥ 11.:--1s for quashiﬁg proceedinggé' ";:;13nner cannot be accepted. xtixat averments of the do not constitute any Qﬁgﬁce. " bar to proceed against gatairitiijavgaemg has been held by the Supreme Court in._(:z0o9}. 2%1%_';-;¢¢. :%? (in the case of U.P.POI!ut:'on Corf.£:*aILABoci}d.Vy.V' Kumaar Mode and anoiher), is . . * ncit to of the case.

' rciied upon by the learxrmzd Sr. Counsel 1 SCC 766 (in the ease of Mahindra £4; Maidiadfx Fz'rzan<c:"aI Services Limited and Another y. Rajiv the Supreme Court has held that procamtiings are gable to be quashed when the avcrments of ccampiaiut accctpted on their fact: value éc; not constitute any oﬂhncc or there is Icgal bar to prncead against accused. I ?'\s/'Lv-e. '"" k" 'W :I.6:

16. In the discussion made supra, I feat aVf':I'H1€I1tS of complaint acceptaé on their fa(fE?.::V£!.§5'i1ti; fjgjof' constitute offences allcgcd against' b T held that 18' accused has 'at the ﬁme of renewal of 1ea'§.e§~»frhcré in"

terms of Section 16 of the A§;t;" aéﬁﬁséd allﬁged to have committed offenéé duties as a public servant. Th¢_ 2?}é agéﬁsfcfi in the ; ' _ --

absence c;f.--:3at;c{ip3;Arcgi:1jr&:d Section 197 Cr.P.C. :17.' «cmiiﬁaspmcts, I am of me camsidered opinion'tl:g:a{t impugned proceedings would be abusevnf cf Therefozve, I pass the following:

0 R D E R is accepted. The proceedings pending in CC"««..No..;é¥62A_{i;59ﬁS on thi': file cf Civil Judge (Jr, 1311.) and gIMF('3; sgndm am quashed.

Sd/--

JUDGE gaw

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court