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

Popular posts from this blog

चिल्ड्रन डे की ढ़ेरों बधाईयां

  मेरे प्यारे नन्हें बच्चों!   पहले, मैं सभी बच्चों को इस दिन की बहुत-बहुत शुभकामनाएँ देना चाहता हूँ। आप सभी इस दुनिया का सबसे अनमोल हिस्सा हैं। आपके शिक्षक उम्र और तजुर्बे में आपसे काफी बड़े है, बढ़ती उम्र उनके माथे में अनायास सिकन लाती है l दुनियाभर की बेमतलब जिम्मेदारियों के बोझ में शिक्षक को सुकून तब मिलता है जब आपका मुस्कुराता हुआ चेहरा सामने आता है l आपको शायद अभी इसका अहसास न हो, लेकिन इस बात में कोई दो राय नहीं है कि आप सभी उस ईश्वर/भगवान या उस अलौकिक परमतत्व के प्रतिरूप है l  चिल्ड्रन डे, जो कि हमारे प्रिय पंडित जवाहरलाल नेहरू के जन्मदिन पर मनाया जाता है, हमें यह याद दिलाता है कि बच्चों का भविष्य हमारे समाज का भविष्य है। नेहरू जी ने हमेशा बच्चों के विकास और शिक्षा को प्राथमिकता दी। उन्होंने कहा था कि "बच्चे हमारे भविष्य हैं," और यही कारण है कि हमें उन्हें प्यार, देखभाल और सही दिशा में मार्गदर्शन देना चाहिए। आज का दिन सिर्फ उत्सव मनाने के लिए नहीं हैं, बल्कि हमें यह भी सोचना है कि हम बच्चों को कैसे एक सुरक्षित, खुशहाल और समृद्ध जीवन दे सकते हैं। हमें बच्चों क...

1. B.Shah vs. Presiding Officer, Labour Court, AIR 1978 SC 12

 Ref : AIR 1978 SC 12 Sub :- This case is based on Section 5 of the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961 Facts of the case:- 1. A woman by the name of Sulbamal worked in an industry named Mount Stuart Estate which was related to planta- tion. 2. Sulbamal gave an application for maternity leave. The estimated period for delivery was 16-12-1967 and she deliv- ered the child on this very date. 3. Maternity benefit was given by way of salary for 72 work- ing days by the employer to the woman workman, but in this period Sunday being the holiday, was excluded by the employer. 4. Thus, being dissatisfied with the amount so provided, she filed an application before the employer in this regard. 5. It was demanded by the woman workman that she should be given full benefit of 12 weeks under the provisions of the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961 which is of full 84 days, not of 72 days because Sunday is also included in it. 6. But, she was denied of the payment of full 84 days by the employer. Trial Court...

भारत का सर्वोच्च न्यायालय

  संगठन चार्ट प्रधान सचिव रजिस्ट्रार (न्यायिक सूचीकरण) अतिरिक्त रजिस्ट्रार उप रजिस्ट्रार सहायक रजिस्ट्रार / एआर-सह-पीएस शाखा अधिकारी/कोर्ट मास्टर व्यवहार करने वाले अधिकारी रजिस्ट्रार (न्यायिक प्रशासन) अतिरिक्त रजिस्ट्रार उप रजिस्ट्रार सहायक रजिस्ट्रार शाखा अधिकारी व्यवहार करने वाले अधिकारी रजिस्ट्रार (खरीद एवं भंडार) अतिरिक्त रजिस्ट्रार उप रजिस्ट्रार सहायक रजिस्ट्रार शाखा अधिकारी व्यवहार करने वाले अधिकारी रजिस्ट्रार-I (गोपनीय कक्ष) अतिरिक्त रजिस्ट्रार उप रजिस्ट्रार सहायक रजिस्ट्रार शाखा अधिकारी व्यवहार करने वाले अधिकारी रजिस्ट्रार (न्यायाधीश प्रशासन एवं अंतर्राष्ट्रीय संबंध) अतिरिक्त रजिस्ट्रार उप रजिस्ट्रार सहायक रजिस्ट्रार शाखा अधिकारी व्यवहार करने वाले अधिकारी रजिस्ट्रार (प्रौद्योगिकी) अतिरिक्त रजिस्ट्रार उप रजिस्ट्रार सहायक रजिस्ट्रार(कंप्यूटर) शाखा अधिकारी व्यवहार करने वाले अधिकारी/ तकनीक. सहायक-सह-प्रोग्रामर रजिस्ट्रार-II (गोपनीय कक्ष) अतिरिक्त रजिस्ट्रार उप रजिस्ट्रार सहायक रजिस्ट्रार शाखा अधिकारी व्यवहार करने वाले अधिकारी रजिस्ट्रार (न्यायालय एवं भवन) अतिरिक्त रजिस्ट्रार उप...