U.P. POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD versus MODI DISTILLERY & ORS.

Citation: [1987] 3 S.C.R. 798 · Decided: 06-08-1987 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.P. SEN · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 3 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

'
A 
B 
c 
0 
E 
F 
U.P. POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD 
v. 
MODI DISTILLERY & ORS. 
AUGUST 6, 1987 
[A.P. SEN AND S. NATARAJAN, JJ.] 
Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974: Ss. 25, 
26, 44 '& 47-Company-Discharge of trade effluents without consent 
of the Board-Commission of offence under the Act-Officials of the 
Company whether guilty of offence-Vicarious responsibility. 
Practice and Procedure: Prevention and Control of Pollution-
Launching of prosecution-Need for drafting complaints with circum· 
spection and without any technical flaw. 
The respondent-distillery, 
an industrial unit of M/s. Modi 
Industries Ltd., at Modi Nagar manufacturing Industrial alcohol has 
been discharging its highly noxious and polluted trade effluents into the 
river through a local drain. It applied to the Pollution Control Board 
under ss. 25(1) and 26 of the Act on March 27, 1981 for consent of the 
Board to discharge its trade emuents into the stream. The Board found 
the applkatlon Incomplete in many respects, and called upon the 
respondents to rectify the discrepancies. As there was no response from 
the respondents, the appellant Board refused to grant the consent 
prayed for In the public interest and thereafter issued notice under s. 20 
of the Act directing the Company to furnish certain information regard· 
Ing the particulars and names of the Managing Director, Directors and 
other persons responsible for the conduct of the Company. This was 
followed by various reminders. 
Finding no response from the respondents, the Board on October 
21, 1983 lodged a complaint against the respondents under s. 44 of the ~ 
G 
Act in the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gaziabad. Instead of 
launching a prosecution against M/s. Modi Industries Ltd., the Board 
impleaded the Industrial unit as respondent No. 1 and the Chairman. 
Vice-Chairman, Managing Director and members of the Board of 
Directors of the Company as respondent Nos. 2 to 11. The Judicial 
Magistrate directed the issue of process. 
H 
798 
-
.-1· 
-
U.P. POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD v. MODI DISTILLERY 
799 
The respondents preferred a revision under s. 397 of the Code of A 
Criminal Procedure, 1973 before the High Court in which en applica· 
tion was flied under s. 482 of the Code for quashing the proceedings. 
The Single Judge of the High Court quashed the proceedings on the 
ground that there could be no vicarious liability saddled on the 
Chairman, Vice-Chairman, Managing Director and other members of 
·~ the Board of Directors of the Company under s. 47 of the Act unless 
B 
there was a prosecution of the Company. 
Allowing the appeal, 
HELD: A combined reading of the provisions contained in sub-
ss. (1) and (2) of s. 47 of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollo-
C 
tion) Act, 1974 makes it apparent that the officials of the Company 
owning the respondent industrial unit could be prosecuted as having 
been in charge of and responsible to the Company for the business of 
that unit and could be deemed to be guilty of the offence with which they 
were charged. [804DE] 
The industrial unit owned by the Company was discharging its 
trade emuents Into the river prior to the commencement of the Act. It 
was, therefore, mandatory for the Company to make an application to 
the Board under s. 25(2) read with s. 26 of the Act for grant of consent 
D 
for the discharge of Its trade emuents into the stream. The application 
made by the industrial unit having been found incomplete in many 
E 
_..- respects was rejected by the Board in public interest. Thereafter the 
~ 
Company which did not have proper arrangements for treatment of the 
highly polluted trade emuents discharged hy it, had been in spite of 
y 
repeated letters from the Board Intentionally and deliberately avoiding 
compliance with the requirements of ~. 2S(l) and 26 rendering 
themselves punishable under s. 44 of the Act. The Chairman. Vice-
F 
Chairman, Mana11ing Director and members of the Board of Directors 
~ 
of the Company In such capacity were incharge of and responsible for 
the conduct of the business of the Company and were, therefore, 
deemed to be guilty of the said offence and liable to be proceeded 
against and punished under s. 47 of the Act. [80SH·806F] 
The vicarious liability of these officials of the Company is to be 
viewed not in isolation but in the conspectus of facts and events and not 
G 
in vacuum. The technical ftaw In the complaint lodpd by the appellant· 
Board had occurre

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