Delhi District Court
Delhi Pollution Control Committee vs M/S. New Raja Sweets on 24 February, 2011
IN THE COURT OF SH. VIRENDER BHAT, A.S.J., DWARKA
COURTS, NEW DELHI.
CR No. 13/11
Unique Case ID No.
Delhi Pollution Control Committee
through: Sh. Amit Chaudhary,
Assistant Environment Engineer,
Ivth floor, ISBT Building,
K. Gate, Delhi110 006. ..........Petitioner
Vs.
1. M/s. New Raja Sweets,
shop No. G1, Plot No. 12,
Vardhman Airport Plaza,
Sector6, Dwarka, New Delhi.
2. Sh. Surender Verma,
shop No. G1, Plot No. 12,
Vardhman Airport Plaza,
Sector6, Dwarka, New Delhi.
Also at: B127, Hari Nagar,
Delhi64. ..........Respondents
CR No.13/11 Page 1 of 9
Date of Institution/filing of appeal :10.02.2011
U/s. 397/399 Cr.P.C.
P.S. Dwarka.
Date of reserving judgment/Order :22.02.2011.
Date of pronouncement :24.02.2011.
JUDGMENT
1. The petitioner Delhi Pollution Control Committee has filed this revision petition against the order dated 9.11.2010 of the Ld. ACMM1, Dwarka Courts, New Delhi whereby the fine of Rs. 5000/ has been imposed upon the respondent u/s 15 of the Environment Protection Act, 1986 for contravention of the notification dated 7.1.2009 issued by Govt. of NCT of Delhi.
2. In exercise of the powers conferred by Section 5 of Environment Protection Act, 1986, and in compliance of the order dated 7.8.2008 of the Delhi High Court in Writ Petition (civil) No. 6456 of 2004, the Lieutenant Governor of National Territory of Delhi vide notification dated 7.1.2009, banned use, sale and storage of all kinds of Plastic bags in the following places in the National Capital Territory of Delhi namely: CR No.13/11 Page 2 of 9
(a) Five Star and Four Star Hotels
(b) Hospitals with 100 or more beds except for the use of plastic bags as prescribed under Bio Medical Waste (Management and Handling Rules, 1998).
(c) All restaurants and eating places having seating capacity of more than 50 seats.
(d) All fruit and vegetable outlets of Mother Dairy.
(e) All liquor vends. (f) All shopping Malls. (g) All shops in main markets and local shopping centers. (h) All retail and wholesale outlets of Branded chain of outlets
selling different consumer products including fruits and vegetables.
3. The notification also mentions that in any places other than the aforesaid places, only biodegradable plastic bags shall be used as observed by Delhi High Court.
4. The respondent No. 1 is a sweet shop situated at Shop No. G1, Plot No. 12, Vardhman Airport Plaza, Sec. 6, Dwarka, Delhi. It is owned and administered by respondent No.2. During a raid CR No.13/11 Page 3 of 9 conducted on the aforesaid shop, on 19.1.2010, it was found that respondent No.2 had stored plastic carry bags and was selling goods in the same from the said shop. Sample plastic carry bags were seized from the said shop at the spot by inspecting team. Since the respondent No. 2 was found to have violated the aforesaid notification dated 7.1.2009, the petitioner committee filed a complaint u/s 15, 16 and 19 of the Environment Protection Act, 1986, read with Section 190 of Criminal Procedure Code against the respondents, seeking the punishment of the respondents as per Section 15 of the Environment Protection Act, 1986.
5. The respondents appeared before the ld. ACMM on receipt of summons and pleaded guilty to the offence alleged against them. It is thereafter that the ld. ACMM passed the impugned order imposing a fine of Rs. 5000/ upon the respondents.
6. I have heard ld. Counsel for petitioner and ld. Counsel for respondent. I have also perused the impugned order as well as the trial court record.
7. It was the submission of the ld. Counsel for petitioner CR No.13/11 Page 4 of 9 that respondents deserve the harshest punishment for polluting the atmosphere of Delhi by acting in contravention of notification dated 7.1.2009. It is his submission that the ld. ACMM has let off the respondents very cheaply by imposing a meager fine of Rs. 5000/ which in no case is commensurate with the offence committed by the respondent. On the contrary ld. Counsel for respondent justified the impugned order of the ld. ACMM saying that the respondents have realised their mistake and they have vowed not to repeat the same in future.
8. Section 15 of the Environment Protection Act, 1986, provides that whosoever, contravenes the provisions of the Act or the orders or directions issued thereunder shall be punishable with imprisonment with a term which may extend up to 5 years and a fine which may extend to Rs. 1 lac rupees or with both. In case the contravention continues, additional fine which may extend to Rs. 5000/ per day, shall be leviable upon the guilty for the period for which the contravention continues.
9. Environmental pollution has become cause for global concern now a days. Every country in the word is working hard on CR No.13/11 Page 5 of 9 ways to curb the ever escalating pollution in environment which is threatening the human existence on the Earth. The legislators in India have been hotly debating over the ways to provide clear and clean environment to the citizens which is their fundamental right. New laws are being enacted and new notification issued regularly to effectively check the pollution levels in the atmosphere. It is for the Courts then to ensure strict compliance of the pollution laws. One of the ways to do so is by imposing heavy penalties upon the offenders as provided by the various statutes.
10. The courts cannot afford to deal with the cases under the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 leniently. The offenders under the Act must be dealt with a stern hand in order to send a strong signal that Courts are also keen to ensure a pollution free environment to the people of this country as every person has a right to pollution free atmosphere. The Supreme Court has also, in AIR 2000 SC 1456 UP Pollution Control Board Vs. M/s. Mohan Makin Ltd. & Ors., observed in this regard : "Courts cannot afford to lightly deal with cases involving pollution of air and water. The message must go to all concerned. The Courts will share the parliamentary concern on the escalating pollution level of our environment. Those who discharge CR No.13/11 Page 6 of 9 noxious polluting effluents to streams may be unconcerned about the enormity of the injury which it inflicts on the public health at large, the irreparable impairment it causes on the aquatic organisms, the deleteriousness it imposes on the life and health of animals. So the Courts should not deal with the prosecution for offences under the Act in a casual or routine manner. Parliamentary concerned in the matter is adequately reflected in strengthening the measures prescribed by the statute. The Court has no jurisdiction for ignoring the seriousness of the subject."
11. Delhi is regarded as one of the most polluted cities in the world. If the pollution in Delhi's atmosphere is not controlled, it won't be possible to live a healthy life in Delhi. The people would start migrating to other parts of the country which are comparatively less polluted and Delhi would become a ghost city. "In 2020, the UN has projected that we will have 50 million environment refugees" said experts at a major science conference (Meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science AAAS) that concluded in Washington, USA very recently on 21.02.2011.
12. In the present case, the respondents have pleaded guilty to CR No.13/11 Page 7 of 9 the contravention of notification dated 07.01.2009 issued by the LG of NCT of Delhi whereunder use of plastic bags in commercial establishments for sale of goods was banned. It is apparent that the trial court has taken a very lenient view of the matter by not sentencing the respondents to imprisonment and by imposing a fine of just Rs. 5000/ upon them. The trial court has totally ignored the amount of damage, the respondents have caused to the Delhi's atmosphere by their illegal acts and the seriousness of pollution laws. It is not that the respondents were using the plastic bag on the day of raid only, they would have been using the same ever since after the issuance of the notification dated 07.01.2009. There is nothing in the statement of the respondent No.2 recorded by the trial court that he had discontinued the use of plastic bags w.e.f. 07.01.2009 and started it again very recently for any compelling reason. The deliberate and flagrant violation of the notification dated 07.01.2009 by the respondents is manifest in this case. Therefore, in my opinion, the respondents deserve a heavier punishment than awarded by the trial court.
13. Keeping all the aforesaid facts and circumstances in view, I feel that demands of justice would be met if the fine imposed upon CR No.13/11 Page 8 of 9 the respondents by the ld. ACMM is enhanced from Rs. 5000/ to Rs. 25,000/. Resultantly, the impugned order passed by the ld. ACMM is hereby modified by imposing a fine of Rs. 25,000/ upon the respondents. Out of the sum of Rs. 25,000/, Rs. 5,000/ shall be deposited with DLSA, Dwarka Courts, New Delhi and Rs. 20,000/ shall be deposited in the Trial Court within one week from today. Out of the said sum of Rs. 20,000/, trial court shall release a sum of Rs. 10,000/ to the Delhi Pollution Control Committee as cost of these proceedings.
14. Revision file be consigned to Record Room. Trial court record be sent back to the concerned court alongwith copy of order.
Announced in open (VIRENDER BHAT)
Court on 24.2.2011. A.S.J. :Dwarka Courts
New Delhi.
CR No.13/11 Page 9 of 9