Ecolex Logo
The gateway to
environmental law
Search results » Jurisprudence

Indu Shekher Singh and Ors. Vs. State of Bihar and Anr.

Country/Territory
India
Type of court
Others
Date
Nov 20, 2007
Source
UNEP, InforMEA
Court name
High Court of Patna
Judge
Syed Md. Mahfooz Alam.
Language
English
Subject
Environment gen., Legal questions
Keyword
Offences/penalties Jurisdictional competence Environmental security Enforcement/compliance
Abstract
A private citizen filed a complaint alleging the accused persons who are office bearers of the Bihar State Pollution Control Board, Patna have unauthorisedly issued environment clearance certificate for establishing a Rolling Mill near the residential house of the complainant in utter violation of the provisions of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986. According to the complaint petition, the power to issue environment clearance certificate vests in the Secretary, Environment & Forest Department, Government of Bihar and not to the authority of the State Pollution Control Board. After filing of the complaint in the court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patna, the learned C.J.M. transferred the complaint case to the Court of the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Patna under the provisions of Section 192 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Thereafter the learned S.D.J.M. held enquiry and by impugned order dated 9.12.2005 took cognizance of the offence, as mentioned above and summoned the petitioners to face trial. The present petition is an application for quashing of the entire criminal proceeding, as it is submitted that under the provisions of Section 19 of the of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986, the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate was not empowered to take cognizance under the Act on a private complaint. The Court held Section 19 has ousted the jurisdiction of the criminal court from taking cognizance of any offence under this Act on a private complaint. It is clear that the Section is mandatory and it lays down that a private person aggrieved by any action of the officers appointed under the Act is not entitled to file complaint before any court unless he has given notice of such complaint to the Central Government or to the proper authority 60 days prior to filing of the complaint. The impugned order is defined as cryptic, vague and cannot be said to be a judicial order and does not speak as to how the grant of environment clearance certificate by the petitioners had caused injury to the complainant and what provision of the Act was violated by the petitioners. The Court found merit in this application for quashing and the impugned order dated 9.12.2005 whereby the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate has taken cognizance against the petitioners in Complaint Case No. 2868 (c) of 2005 is set aside and further proceeding in Complaint Case No. 2868 (c) of 2005 against the petitioners is ordered to be dropped.
Full text
COU-156241.pdf
Website
www.indiankanoon.org