M.C. Mehta vs Union Of India & Ors on 18 March, 2004
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