IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF JULY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JOHN MICHAEL CUNHA CRIMINAL PETITION No. 304 OF 2015 BETWEEN:
SRI A.CHANDRASHEKAR REDDY, MANAGING PARTNER, M/S. TEJA WORKS SRI VEERABHADRESHWARA NILAYA, 2ND CROSS, VIDYANAGAR, CHIKKANAYAKANAHALLY TALUK, TUMKUR DISTRICT, HAVING THEIR HEAD OFFICE AT NAGA NILAYAM, 29/178-1A-7, S.B.I. COLONY, NANDYALA, KURNOOL DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH – 518 501.
(BY SRI. VINAY T.R., ADVOCATE FOR SRI. C.V. SUDHINDRA, ADVCOATE) AND:
... PETITIONER 1. KARNATAKA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD, PARISARA BHAVANA, NO.49, CHURCH STREET, BENGALURU - 560 001.
REPRESENTED BY ITS REGIONAL OFFICER (ENVIRONMENT OFFICER) REGIONAL OFFICE, PLOT NO.97, ANTHARASANAHALLI INDL. AREA, SIRA ROAD, LINGAPURA, TUMKUR - 572 106.
2. M/S. TEJA WORKS, IRON ORE MINES, ML.NO.2353, SY.NO.37 OF SONDENAHALLI VILLAGE, TUMKUR DISTRICT - 572 106.
... RESPONDENTS (R1 SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED.
VIDE ORDER DATED 23.07.2019 NOTICE TO R2 IS HELD SUFFICIENT) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDING IN C.C.NO.289/2007 ON THE FILE OF CIVIL JUDGE (JR. DN.) AND JMFC, CHIKKANAYAKANAHALLI, TUMKUR DISTRICT.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R Heard learned counsel for petitioner. Learned counsel for respondents is absent. Perused the records.
2. Substance of accusations against the petitioner and other accused is that without requisite consent, petitioners herein carried on mining activities and extracted 79,853 tones of Iron Ore, 3771 tons of clay during the period 2004-2005 and 21,444 tons of Iron Ore, 4,816 tons of Clay and 1760 tons of Manganese Ore during the period 2005-2006 without obtaining CFE/CFO from the Board in violation of Section 21/22 of Air (Prevention & Control of Pollution) Act, 1981, (hereinafter referred to as ‘Act’ for short), which attracts penal action under Section 37 of the Act.
3. Learned counsel for petitioner has assailed the impugned action on the following grounds:
First, there was no proper authorization for prosecution of the petitioner. Referring to the resolution dated 27.09.2006 passed by the Karnataka State Pollution Control Board, learned counsel for petitioner submitted that under the said resolution/memo, Board had authorized only the Chairman, but the Chairman, has sub-delegated the authority, to the Environmental Officer, contrary to the initial authorization and therefore on this ground alone the impugned proceedings are liable to be quashed.
Second, the assignment of mining lease had taken place in 2004-2005. As on that day, petitioner was not the owner of the Mine and therefore, the prosecution of the petitioner for the alleged violation is illegal and untenable.
4. Both these contentions, in my view, are misconceived and cannot be accepted. Insofar as the authorisation to initiate prosecution is concerned, the memo dated 27.9.2006 at Annexure-H reads as under:
“ MEMO Sub: Authorisation to file Criminal case for violation under Section 21/22 read with Section 37 of Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act 1981, against M/s.Teja Works, ML No.2353, Sy.No.37, Sondenahalli Village, C.N.Halli Taluk, Tumkur District.
Fax Letter dated 23.8.2006 of Regional Office, Tumkur.
***** M/s.Teja Works, ML No.2353, Sy.No.37, Sondenahalli Village, C.N.Halli Taluk, Tumkur District, is engaged in mining of Iron Ore without obtaining CFE from the Board. The Board has also refused the consent for operation on 8.5.2006. It is reported by the Regional Officer in the letter cited under reference that, the mine has produced 79,853 Tons of Iron Ore and 3771 tones of clay for the period 2004-2005 and 21,444 Tons of Iron Ore, 4,816 Towns of Clay and 1760 Tons of Manganese Ore for the period 2005-2006 without obtaining CFE/CFO from the Board in violation of Section 21/22 of Air (Prevention & control of Pollution) Act, 1981 and attracts penal action under Section 37 of 3771 tones of clay for the period 2004-2005 and 21,444 Tons of Iron Ore, 4,816 Towns of Clay and 1760 Tons of Manganese Ore for the period 2005-2006 without obtaining CFE/CFO from the Board in violation of Section 21/22 of Air (Prevention & control of Pollution) Act.
Therefore, I Dr.H.C.Sharatchandra, Chairman, Karnataka State Pollution Control Board, having full knowledge of the violations committed by M/s.Teja Works, ML No.2353, Sy.No.37, Sondenahalli Village, C.N.Halli Taluk, Tumkur District, hereby authorize the Environmental Officer, Regional Office, KSPCB, Tumkur, to file a Criminal Case for violation under Section 21/22 read with Section 37 of Air (Prevention & Control of Pollution) Act 1981, against M/s.Teja Works, ML No.2353, Sy.No.37, Sondenahalli Village, C.N.Halli Taluk, Tumkur District.
5. A reading of the said memo indicates that by the said memo, Dr. H.C. Sharatchandra, Chairman, Karnataka State Pollution Control Board, authorized the Environmental Officer to file a criminal case for the alleged violation. Private complaint is filed by the Regional Officer viz., the Environmental Officer in terms of the above authorization. Therefore, there is absolutely no illegality in the initiation of criminal action as contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner.
6. In the case relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner in P Parimala and Others Vs .State of Karnataka and another, AIR 2015 SC 2495, the Regional Officer was authorized by the delegate (Chairman of the Board), since the delegate (Chairman of the Board) had sub-delegated authority and in that circumstance, it was held that presentation of the complaint was without proper authorization. In the instant case, the complaint having been filed in terms of the authorization issued by the Chairman of the Karnataka State Pollution Control Board, there is no illegality in the initiation of the proceedings as sought to be made out by the learned counsel for the petitioner.
7. Coming to the other contention urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the same is a question of fact, which cannot be decided under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. nor could it be considered as a ground to quash the proceedings. As a result, I do not find any merit in the contentions urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner.
Consequently, the petition is dismissed.
Sd/- JUDGE psg*