Madhya Pradesh High Court
Mandelez India Food Ltd. (Cadbury India ... vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh Thr. on 24 October, 2016
1 Mcrc.13109/15
Mondelez India Food Ltd. Vs. State of M.P. & others
24/10/16
Shri Surendra Singh, Sr. Advocate with Shri Saurabh Agrawal,
Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Prakhar Dhengula, Panel Lawyer for the
respondents/State.
1. Inherent powers of this court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. are invoked for quashment of the order dated 24/4/2015 in Cri.Rev.No.252/14 whereby after setting aside the order passed by the SDM Gohad, District Bhind (M.P.) under Section 133 of Cr.P.C. on 15/7/2014, the revisional court has remanded the matter to the SDM Gohad for passing fresh order under Section 133 of Cr.P.C., after affording due and sufficient opportunity to the petitioner in accordance with law.
2. The short facts giving rise to the present dispute are that the petitioner is a company registered under the Companies Act which owns and runs a factory at Malanpur, District Bhind. In the newspaper published on 31/1/2014 and 3/2/2014, an article was published that the petitioner's factory was releasing polluted effluents into Vaishali Reservoir which is the source of water supply for the town of Gohad (Distt.Bhind). An inspection was carried out by the Revenue Inspector, Endori on the direction of the Collector and SDM which revealed that polluted effluents were being released by the factory of the petitioner-company into the said reservoir resulting in harmful affects to animals and fishes. Similar report of the polluted effluents discharged by the factory of the petitioner-company was also submitted by the police authority and the Water Resources Department. It was also reported that there is public outcry against the said polluted effluents released by the petitioner's factory. This led to issuance of show cause notice under Section 133 of Cr.P.C. (Annexure-B), dated 20/5/2014 asking the petitioner to appear and 2 Mcrc.13109/15 Mondelez India Food Ltd. Vs. State of M.P. & others show cause on 27/5/2014. The petitioner filed reply on 27/5/2014, which was considered and found unsatisfactory. Resultantly, the SDM Gohad invoking his powers under Section 133 of Cr.P.C., passed the final order dated 15/7/2014 (Annexure-C), directing the petitioner's factory to immediately stop the nuisance being caused by the polluted effluents discharged by the factory. The Revenue Inspector of Endori was directed to ensure that in case any further effluents are found to be discharged by the petitioner's factory into Vaishali dam then arrangements be made to prohibit the same failing which police be informed for registration of offence.
3. The petitioner approached the Additional Sessions Judge, Gohad by filing revision against said final order under Section 133 of Cr.P.C., passed by the SDM primarily contending that no reasonable opportunity was afforded by allowing the petitioner to adduce evidence against the allegation of nuisance. The said revision was allowed by setting aside the final order under Section 133 of Cr.P.C., and remanding the matter to the SDM, Gohad for passing fresh final order after affording due and sufficient opportunity to the petitioner.
4. While taking cognizance of the present matter, this court by an interim order passed on 2/12/2015 not only stayed the revisional order of remand dated 24/4/2015 but also the further proceedings pending before SDM, Gohad. The said interim order for failure of the petitioner to submit material document was vacated on 14/3/2016 and for the present there is no interim order subsisting.
5. The sole contention of the learned Senior Advocate Shri Surendra Singh alongwith Shri Saurabh Agrawal, Advocate for the petitioner is that the proceedings under Section 133 of Cr.P.C., are essentially preventive in nature. The object is to stop and remove any nuisance which is injurious to health or physical comfort of the community by taking prompt preventive and punitive steps after 3 Mcrc.13109/15 Mondelez India Food Ltd. Vs. State of M.P. & others affording due and sufficient opportunity to the person alleged to be causing nuisance. It is further submitted by relying on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of State of M.P. Vs. Kedia Leather & Liquor Ltd. & others reported in 2003 (7) SCC 389 that the order passed under Section 133 are not intended to apply in a situation of future likelihood of nuisance but applies to the nuisance existing at the time when the order is passed. It is also submitted that this provision is inapplicable in case of potential nuisance but can be invoked on discovery of nuisance which imminently exists in actuality.
6. On the basis of the above legal submission, learned Sr. Advocate submits that the nuisance being alleged by the respondents is of January-February, 2014 whereafter more than 2 & ½ years have elapsed and there is no further complaint by any functionary of the State that the factory of the petitioner is causing nuisance by discharge of polluted effluents. The imminence and urgency attached to the nuisance which may have existed in January-February 2014 has ceased and does not exist any more and therefore the exercise of restarting the proceedings under Section 133 of Cr.P.C. after remand, would be an exercise in futility.
7. In this factual and legal background, learned Sr. Advocate for the petitioner prays for quashment of the impugned order and pending proceedings before the SDM, Gohad under Section 133 of Cr.P.C., with a prayer to give quietus to the matter.
8. Per contra, learned Panel Lawyer for the State supporting the impugned order submits that in fact the revisional order is in favour of the petitioner where matter has been remanded to the SDM for passing fresh final order after affording due and sufficient opportunity to the petitioner. More so, it is submitted that in matters of this nature, where health of public at large can be adversely affected, the 4 Mcrc.13109/15 Mondelez India Food Ltd. Vs. State of M.P. & others petitioner is not entitled to any relief.
9. The prayer of learned Sr. Advocate for the petitioner appears to be convincing at first blush but if the same is acceded to then no order of remand passed in revisional proceedings challenging an order under Section 133 of Cr.P.C., would be sustainable and the alleged nuisance maker would adopt procrastinative means to keep litigation pending for long and thereafter raise the ground that imminence and urgency of nuisance no more exist. In this manner, every potential nuisance maker would find an easy way to extricate himself from the clutches of law.
10. In view of the above, this court is of the considered view that grant of relief as sought by the petitioner would in fact not only be travesty of justice but lead to setting a bad precedent and opening the Pandora's box for all future nuisance makers to take advantage of the delay caused in litigation.
11. In the conspectus of discussions made above, this court does not see any failure of justice in passing of the impugned order and therefore declines exercise of inherent powers in favour of the petitioner.
12. Accordingly, the petition fails and is dismissed, sans cost.
(Sheel Nagu) Judge 24/10/2016 (Bu)