Skip to main content

Followers

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.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Important Topics for Semester Exam in Environmental Law useful for LL.B Students.

  1.           State facts and the principles of law laid down in the case of Monera Mandal Sahkari Shakkar Karkhana Society vs M.P. Board of Prevention of Water Pollution, 1993 M.P.L.J.270.   2.            Power to take samples of effluents and procedure to be followed in connection therewith under the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 3.            Discuss the various provisions Indian Constitution concerning Environmental Protection. What are the main features of the Environment (Protection) Act 1986 and the provisions of penalties and procedure for violation of provisions, rules, orders and instructions. 4.            Describe the special provisions in the case of supersession of the Central Board or the State Board constituted under the Water (prevention and control of pollution) Act, 1974. Explain in brief about the provisions regarding appeal and revision under this Act. 5.            Explain the objects and main provisions of the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollut
Post a Comment
Read more

1. A. Mackenzie vs. J S Izzak, AIR 1970 SC 1906

Ref : AIR 1970 SC 1906 Sub :- This case is based on Section 2 of the Workmen Compensation Act, 1923. Facts of the case :- 1. S.S. Dwarka is a ship whose owner is The British India Stream Navigation Limited and Mackenzie was its agent. 2. Shaikh Ibrahim Hasan was a class II seaman on this ship and who was missing from the ship. 3. It was clear from the medical log book that he had a chest pain on 13 December 1961 and he was suffering from it. 4. It was known from the medical checkup that nothing was unusual and medical officer gave him medicines and con- firmed his recovery and joining back on his duty next day. 5. It was known from the log book of the office on 16 Decem- ber 1961 that he was on the ship that day and he was seen on the bridge at 2:50 in the morning. 6. He was found missing at 6:15 in the morning. The master of the ship informed on the radio message at 7:30 in the morning that a seaman is missing between Khoramsar and Asahar and he is likely to be missing in the river.
Post a Comment
Read more