GUJARAT POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD versus M/S NICOSULF INDUSTRIES & EXPORT PVT. LTD. AND ORS.

Citation: [2008] 17 S.C.R. 27 · Decided: 04-12-2008 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2008] 17 S.C.R. 27 
GUJARAT POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD 
A 
\I. 
M/S NICOSULF INDUSTRIES & EXPORT PVT. LTD. AND 
ORS. 
(Criminal Appeal No. 9 of 2002) 
B 
DECEMBER 4, 2008 
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, P. SATHASIVAM AND AFTAB 
ALAM, JJ.] 
Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 197 4 - c 
ss. 24, 25, 43 and 45 - Conviction under - Allegation of 
discharge of· polluted effluent by factory in breach of 
conditions imposed -
Conviction of Company and its 
Directors -
Set aside by High Court -
On appeal held: 
Sample collected for analysis was not from the over-flown D 
effluent but of the effluent on the way to solar evaporation 
A",. 
pans for further treatment - Said effluent would never meet 
the prescribed parameters -
Thus, alleged breach of the 
condition not proved -
Order of conviction set aside -
Environmental law. 
E 
Respondent No.1 Company and its co-directors were 
producing certain chemicals. During the process of 
production they were discharging 10,800 liters of polluted 
water every day. Appellant-Gujarat Pollution Control 
F 
Board had granted them prior permission for discharging 
the polluted water imposing certain condition. It is alleged 
that the Company violated the conditions imposed. 
Appellant collected sample of polluted Water from the 
\ 
industry. On analysis, it did not conform to the prescribed G 
•· 
standards. The Assistant Environmental Engineer on 
• 
behalf of the Pollution Control Board-appellant filed 
,... 
~ 
complaint under the Water (Prevention and Control of 
Pollution) Act, 197 4 against the respondent No.1 and its 
-
co-directors. The trial court convicted and sentenced 
"' 
27 
H 
. 
t 
=, 
e 
28 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2008] 17 S.C.R. 
A 
them u/ss. 24, 25, 43 and 44 of th.e Act. High Court holding 
that the complainant had no aut~ority to file the complaint 
}.._ 
as the complaint was not filed by the Board as defined 
u/s 2(h) of the Act and also considering the other aspects, 
set aside the order. Hence, the present ·appeal. 
B 
Dismissing .the appeal, the Court 
., 
HELD: Factually there is nothing to show that the 
sample collected was from the over-flown effluent. The 
.¥ 
evidence on record clearly shows that the effluent was 
r 
c on the way to the solar evaporation pans for further 
treatment. The said effluent would never meet the 
...... 
parameters prescribed as it is yet to be treated. Thus, the 
alleged breach of the condition was not proved. [Para 
13)(33-G-H; 34-A] 
D 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal 
No. 9 of 2002. 
.Ji., 
From the final Judgment and Order dated 8.8.2001 the 
E 
High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad in Criminal Revision 
Application No. ~41 of 2001. 
Harish N. Salve, Preetesh Kapoor, Pinky K. Enatoli Serna, 
,. 
Hem'antika Wahi, Rashesh SanjanwaJa, Biridi.J K. Nair, Shamik 
Sanjanwala and K.R Sasiprabhu for the appearing parties. 
F 
The Judgment ofthe Court was delivered by. 
>-
DR. ARIJIT PASA VAT, J. 1. Challenge in this appeal is 
to the judgment of a learned Single Judge of the Gujarat High 
1 
Court allowing the Revision Petition filed by the respondents 1 
• 
) 
G 
and 2. 
~L-
2. A complaint under Sections 24, 25, 43, 44 and.47 of 
.Y ...
the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 (in 
short the 'Actfwas filed by the Assistant Envfronmental 
~-
H 
Engineer on behalf of the Gujarat Pollution Control Board (in 
.f . 
,___
GUJARAT POLL. CONT. BOARD v. MIS NICOSULF INDUS. 
29 
-
& EXPORT PVT. LTD. AND ORS. [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.] 
short the 'Board') against a private limited company i.e. M/s A 
--1 
Nicosulf Industries & Exports Private Limited-respondent no.1 
and its co-directors Kishanbhai M. Narsinh, Mihirbhai G. Virji 
and Dushyant P. Lejawala alleging inter-alia that the accused 
nos. 2, 3 and 4 are producing Nicotine Sulphate in their factory 
and using Tobacco Stuff, Lime, Kerosene and Sulphuric Acid 8 
as raw-materials, and during the course of the process of 
production they are discharging 10,800 litres of polluted water 
~ 
every day. Under sections 24 and 25 of the Act, every industry 
is compulsorily required to obtain prior permission or approval 
of the Board for discharging its polluted water used by it either c 
within or outside the industry as per section 25(i) of the Act. 
Permission was granted by imposing certain conditions to the 
accused persons. If the industry commits breach of conditions, 
complaint can be filed, which in the instant case was filed 
alleging that there was breach

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.