2. Muraina Mandal Sahkari Shakkar Karkhana (Petitioner) Vs M.P. Board (Respondent)

Ref: 1993 MPLJ 270

Sub:- This case is based on Sections 25, 26 and 49 of the Water Pollution (Prevention and Control) Act.

Facts of the case :-

1. Muraina Mandal Sahkari Shakkar Karkhana is situated at Kailarus, District Muraina, MP which produces (Manufactures) sugar.

2. This factory, by violating Sections 25 and 26 of the Water Pollution (Prevention and Control) Act, emitted out pol- luted discharge, which is causing water pollution.

3. The Secretary of the MP Pollution Prevention Board, Mr. RK Khare filed prosecution sheet before the Court of the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Sabalgarh on 7 August 1985.

4. Following two were made accused in this prosecution sheet:

1. Muraina Mandal Sahkari Shakkar Karkhana, Ltd.

2. The General Manager of the factory.

And, they have been charged with the violation of Sections 25 and 26 of the Water Pollution (Prevention and Control) Act.

Trial Court:-

The Magistrate dismissed the prosecution case on 12 June, 1987 on the ground that at the time of the incident, the present General Manager was not on this post.

Sessions Court:-

The MP Board filed a revision petition against this order before the Sessions Court. The Sessions Court held that the violation is a continu- ing offense and it makes no difference whether the present General Manager was present on the day of incident or not and allowed the revision petition.

High Court:-

Against this order, the Petitioner (Muraina Mandal Sahkari Shakkar Karkhana) presented a revision petition before the High Court. The Petitioner took two grounds against the prosecution

1. Present General Manager is not liable to be prosecuted

2. This prosecution has been presented without confirma- tion of the State Board which is a violation of Section 49. This prosecution sheet was presented on behalf of the State Board, not by the State Board and the State Board had not delegated the power of filing case to the Secretary. 

Section 49 provides that a Court will take cognizance of the complaint only after confirmation by the State Board about the violation of any provision of the Act.

Therefore, the Court is of the opinion that in this case prior permission of the State Board was not taken and the Secre- tary incompetent to file this case. Therefore, the order of the Sessions Court is liable to be dismissed and the order of the Magistrate was upheld.

Judgment: Revision petition allowed.

Law points:-

1. Work should always be done under the delegated power.

2. One of the conditions of Section 49 is that a case cannot be filed without permission of the State Board.