Crl.Misc.No.M- 8761 of 2010 (O&M) v. Haryana State Pollution Control Board

Present: Mr.Anand Chhibber, Sr.Advocate with Mr.Vaibhav Sahni, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr.Rishi Tandon, Advocate for Mr.Arun Walia, Advocate, for the respondent. SABINA, J. **** By way of this petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, petitioners have sought quashing of criminal complaint No.1 dated 24.10.2005 (Annexure P-1) filed by the respondent for violation of Rule 5 (VII) of Environment Protection Rules (the Rules for short) read with Section 15 of the Environment Protection Act, 1986 (the Act for short); summoning order dated

13.4.2006 (Annexure P-3) and all the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom. Learned senior counsel for the petitioners has submitted that from the perusal of the complaint, it could not be said that any violation of Rule 5 (VII) of the Rules has been committed. Learned counsel has placed reliance on the copy of letter dated 28.1.2005 (Annexure P-11) addressed to the Chairman, Haryana State Pollution Crl.Misc.No.M- 8761 of 2010 (O&M) 2 Control Board, Panchkula (the Board for short) by the Environmental Engineer, Sonepat Region, Sonepat, wherein, it had been stated that the cumulative pollution load after merger of the two units had remained unchanged at the outlet being the existing common Effluent Treatment Plants for both the units. Learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, has submitted that after the merger of the two units, the petitioners were required to get environment clearance certificate from the Ministry of Environment and Forests, Government of India as per the notification dated 27.1.1994 (Annexure P-7). After hearing learned senior counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the respondent, I am of the opinion that the present petition deserves to be allowed. In the present case, the respondent had filed a complaint against the petitioners (Annexure P-1) alleging therein that accused Nos. 2 to 7 were running a unit under the name and style of M/s Kiran Overseas Exports Ltd. Petitioner No.1 was large medium scale industry and was dealing with manufacturing of finished leather from raw skin and hides. The unit had obtained 'No Objection' certificate from the Board vide letter dated 28.12.1990. M/s Rahul Leathers, a tannery unit, was also established after obtaining 'No Objection' certificate from the Board. However, in the year, 2001, petitioner No.1 took over M/s Rahul Leathers and thus, became a tannery. Petitioner No.1 had not obtained environment clearance certificate from the Ministry of Environment and Forests, Government of India as per notification dated 27.1.1994 (Annexure P-7). Hence, the Crl.Misc.No.M- 8761 of 2010 (O&M) 3 complaint was filed. Admittedly, M/s Rahul Leathers was a tannery unit, whereas, petitioner No.1 was involved in the process of semi finished leather. Now petitioner No.1 has taken over M/s Rahul Leathers. In this regard, letter dated 28.1.2005 (Annexure P-11), written to the Chairman, Haryana State Pollution Control Board by the Environmental Engineer, Sonepat Region, Sonepat is very relevant. The contents of the said letter read as under:- “ Please refer to Head Office letter No. HSPCB/2183 dated 6.2.2005 on the subject noted above. In this connection, it is intimated that M/s Rahul Leathers was a tannery unit whereas M/s Kiran Overseas and Exports Ltd. was involved in the process of semi finished leather. The two units had a common ETP and a common outlet. After taking over of M/s Rahul Leathers by M/s Kiran Overseas and Exports Ltd. the tanning process of M/s Rahul Leathers was added in the existing process of M/s Kiran Overseas and Exports Ltd. but the cumulative pollution load after merger of the two units remained unchanged at the outlet being the existing common ETP for both the units. However, there is no change in the name of M/s Kiran Overseas and Exports Ltd. after merger of M/s Rahul Leathers. It is submitted for your kind information and further necessary action please.” Thus, a perusal of the above letter reveals that both the Crl.Misc.No.M- 8761 of 2010 (O&M) 4 units i.e. Petitioner No.1 and M/s Rahul Leathers were having a common Effluent Treatment Plant and common outlet. After petitioner No.1 took over M/s Rahul Leathers, cumulative pollution load of the two units remained unchanged at the outlet as they were already having a common Effluent Treatment Plant for both the units. As per the complaint itself both the units were initially having 'No Objection' Certificate from the pollution control board. As both the units had common Effluent Treatment Plant and the common outlet, it appears that there was no necessity for petitioner No.1 to seek a fresh certificate from the Ministry of Environment and Forests. Annexure P-11 makes it very clear that petitioner No.1 was not creating any pollution hazard. Rule 5 (vii) of the Rules reads as under:- “5. Prohibitions and restrictions on the location of industries and the carrying on processes and operations in different areas:- (vii) Net adverse environmental impact likely to be caused by an industry, process or operation proposed to be prohibited or restricted. “ Section 15 of the Act reads as under:- “PENALTY FOR CONTRAVENTION OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT AND THE RULES, ORDERS AND DIRECTIONS :(1) Whoever fails to comply with or contravenes any of the provisions of this Act, or the rules made or orders or directions issued thereunder, shall, in respect of each such failure or contravention, be Crl.Misc.No.M- 8761 of 2010 (O&M) 5 punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to five years with fine which may extend to one lakh rupees, or with both, and in case the failure or contravention continues, with additional fine which may extend to five thousand rupees for every day during which such failure or contravention continues after the conviction for the first such failure or contravention. (2) If the failure or contravention referred to in sub-section (1) continues beyond a period of one year after the date of conviction, the offender shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to seven years.” A combined reading of Annexure P-11, Rule 5 (vii) of the Rules and Section 15 of the Act reveals that petitioner No.1 was not creating any pollution hazard. In view of letter dated 28.1.2005 (Annexure P-11), continuation of criminal proceedings against the petitioners would be nothing but an abuse of process of law. Accordingly, this petition is allowed. Criminal complaint No.1 dated 24.10.2005 (Annexure P-1) filed by the respondent for violation of Rule 5 (VII) of the Rules read with Section 15 of the Act; summoning order dated 13.4.2006 (Annexure P-3) and all the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom are quashed. December 17, 2012 (SABINA) JUDGE