Dismissed

M/S Mahalaxmi Buildtek Ltd. Thru. Its Authorized Repreast. Mr. Anand Kumar Singh and 3 Others v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Allahabad HC21 Mar 2024/2666/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an application under Section 482 CrPC regarding an inspection report violation of the Air Act, the court held that civil remedies do not preclude criminal proceedings. Both proceedings can run parallelly with different purposes and standards of evidence. The summoning order was upheld.

What did the court decide?

The Application under Section 482 CrPC was dismissed.

M/S Mahalaxmi Buildtek Ltd. Thru. Its Authorized… — Environment and Pollution | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:25052

¶2

Court No. - 29

¶3

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 2666 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- M/S Mahalaxmi Buildtek Ltd. Thru. Its Authorized Repreast. Mr. Anand Kumar Singh And 3 Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Purnendu Chakravarty,Anuj Tandon,Pranjal Jain

¶5

Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶6

Hon'ble Ajay Bhanot,J.

¶7

Heard Shri Purnendu Chakravarty, learned counsel assisted by Shri Anuj Tandon, learned counsel for the applicants, Shri A. K. Verma, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 and Shri Vinay Kumar Shahi, learned AGA for the State.

¶8

The instant Application U/S 482 is directed against the Complaint Case No. 7211 of 2020 under Section 37 of Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') registered by the opposite party no. 2 against the applicants.

¶9

The gravamen of the allegations in the complaint is that the applicants had established the industrial plant without obtaining previous consent from the competent Pollution Control Board which is in violation of Section 21 of the Act. The complaint has been made on the footing of an inspection report dated 14.12.2020. The inspection report

¶10

records that at the time of physical inspection of Khasra No. 191M Village Morta, District Ghaziabad, RMC Plant was found in operation.

¶11

It is contended on behalf of the applicants that a permission was obtained to establish and operate the said plant. However, permission to which attention is drawn is of dated 02.06.2021 which is admittedly subsequent to the date of the inspection.

¶12

Prima facie an offence of violation of the provisions of the Act is disclosed from the compliant.

¶13

Learned counsel for the applicants contends that the applicants have remedies under the Act to assail the inspection report before the appellate authority. Further the appeal can be carried to the national tribunal. The criminal proceedings are not maintainable since the applicants are yet to avail their right of appeal.

¶14

I am afraid the submission is misconceived. The existence of remedies against the civil liabilities imposed upon the polluters by the Pollution Board will not preclude them from instituting criminal proceedings under the Act. Civil proceedings and the criminal proceedings under the Act can proceed parallel and simultaneously. Both proceedings have different purposes. Standards of evidence also vary in civil and criminal proceedings.

¶15

In this wake, the impugned summoning order passed by

¶16

the trial court cannot be faulted. No ground for interference is made out.

¶17

The Application U/S 482 is dismissed.

¶18

Order Date :- 21.3.2024 Dhananjai

¶19

Digitally signed by :- DHANANJAI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

M/S Mahalaxmi Buildtek Ltd. Thru. Its Authorized Repreast. Mr. Anand Kumar Singh and 3 Others v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Mahalaxmi Buildtek Ltd. Thru. Its Authorized Repreast. Mr. Anand Kumar Singh and 3 Others v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

M/S S.V. Eccentrics Pvt. Ltd. Thru. Its Director Mr. Manish Agarwal Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Govt. of U.P. Lucknow and 2 Others

Munni Devi Katiyar AND2 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Krishna Chandra Pandey and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. Lko. and Another

Bhagat Kumar Yadav and 4 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another

Nitin Keshavji vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 2 Others

M/S Mahalaxmi Buildtek Ltd. Thru. Its Authorized Repreast. Mr. Anand Kumar Singh and 3 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another