Quashed

Ashok Sarkar v. The State Of Jharkhand And Anr.

Jharkhand HC4 Mar 2015Cr.M.P./2679/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner filed a criminal miscellaneous petition seeking quashing of an order taking cognizance under the Environment Protection Act, 1986. The High Court quashed the criminal proceedings, including the order, due to non-compliance with mandatory provisions of the Act and Rules, noting the petitioner was similarly situated to other accused whose cases were previously quashed.

What did the court decide?

The entire criminal proceedings of CP Case No. 998 of 2007, including the order dated 12.07.2007 taking cognizance, are quashed.

Ashok Sarkar Vs The State Of Jharkhand And Anr. — Writ and Judicial Review | Jharkhand HC (2015)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶2

Cr.M.P No. 2679 of 2013

¶3

Ashok Sarkar, Son of late Gobindo Sarkar, the then General Manager, Barora Area of Bharat Coking Coal Limited at present resident of Directors Bunglow, Koyla Nagar, P.O. Koyla Nagar, P.S. Saraidhella, District-Dhanbad.

¶4

....Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

The State of Jharkhand.

¶7

Shankar Kishore Mahto, Son of not known to the petitioner, Secretary, Binod Bihari Mahto Smarak Samittee, P.O. Chiragoda, P.S. Dhanbad District-Dhjanbad.

¶8

.....Opposite Parties

¶9

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY

¶10

For the Petitioners : Mr. Anoop Kumar Mehta, Advocate. For the Opposite Party No.1 : A.P.P. For the Opposite Party No.2 : None

¶11

07/ Dated 4th March, 2015

¶12

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the

¶13

State.

¶14

Although notices were validly served upon opposite party no.2 but no one has put in appearance by filing Vakalatnama on behalf of opposite party no.2 to oppose this application.

¶15

The prayer of the petitioner in this application is for quashing the order dated 12.07.2007 passed by the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad in connection with C.P. Case No. 998 of 2007 by which cognizance has been taken for the offence punishable under Section 15 of the Environment ( Protection) Act, 1986.

¶16

A complaint was made by the opposite party no.2 to the effect that the owners of the hospitals threw bio medical waste at public places and also in public drains by which people are exposed to various diseases. It was also alleged therein that although information was given to the Pollution Control Board at Ranchi, and the Area Pollution Control Board at Dhanbad on various dates but no action has been taken against the accused persons.

¶17

Learned counsel for the petitioner has assailed the impugned order taking cognizance by referring to section 19 of the Environment Protection Act, 1986 which reads as follows.

¶18

“ 19. Cognizance of offences.- No court shall take cognizance of any offence under this Act except on a complaint made bya) the Central Government or any authority or officer authorised in this behalf by that Government; or

¶19

b) any person who has given notice of not less than sixty days, in the manner prescribed, of the

¶20

¶21

alleged offence and of his intention to make a complaint, to the Central government or the authority or officer authorised as aforesaid.”

¶22

He has further brought to the notice of the Court the provisions enumerated in the rules specially Rule 11 which states the manner of giving notice under clause (b) of Section 19 of the Environment Protection Act, 1986. Learned counsel for the petitioner therefore submits that the provisions laid down in Rule 11(b) of the rules framed under Environment Protection Act, 1986 has not been followed and consequently, the learned court below was precluded from taking cognizance of the offences under Section 15 of the Environment Protection Act, 1986. He has also submitted that in similar circumstances arising out of the same complaint quashing applications had been filed challenging the entire criminal proceedings including the order taking cognizance vide Cr.M.P. No. 1047 of 2010, Cr.M.P No. 1127 of 2010 and Cr.M.P. 2714 of 2013 and this court vide order dated 2.7.2012, 7.11.2012 and 10.12.2014 respectively had quashed the entire criminal proceedings with respect to the petitioners of those cases.

¶23

Learned counsel for the State has submitted that although in the complaint case allegations have been levelled against the petitioner but he does not dispute the fact that the case of similarly situated accused persons have already been quashed by this Court.

¶24

Considering the provisions of the Environment Protection Act, 1986 and the rules framed therein more notably, Rule 11 of the Rules coupled with the fact that admittedly the mandatory provisions of the Act and the Rules have not been adhered to while instituting the complaint case, I have no other option but to quash the entire criminal proceeding. Moreover, with respect to case of the other accused persons, their quashing applications have already been allowed by this Court and the case of the petitioner is similarly situated therein

¶25

Accordingly, the entire criminal proceedings of C.P Case No. 998 of 2007 including the order dated 12.07.2010 by which cognizance was taken against the petitioners under Section 15 of the Environment Protection Act, 1986 is hereby quashed.

¶26

In the result, this application stands allowed.

¶27

(Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J.)

¶28

Ashok Sarkar v. The State Of Jharkhand And Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ashok Sarkar v. The State Of Jharkhand And Anr.

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

Similar cases

L.K.Khemka Vs State of Jharkhand And Anr.

Dashrath Durga Prasad Durga Durga Dashrath And Vs State of Jharkhand And Anr.

Gauri Sarkar And Anr. Vs State of Jharkhand And Anr.

Smt Kunti Devi and Ors. Vs The State Of Jharkhand And Anr.

Shri Amit Saha And Anr. Vs State of Jharkhand And Anr.

Hari Shanker Singh Vs The State Of Jharkhand

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

L.K.Khemka Vs State of Jharkhand And Anr.

Dashrath  Durga Prasad  Durga  Durga Dashrath And Vs State of Jharkhand And Anr.

Gauri Sarkar And Anr. Vs State of Jharkhand And Anr.

Smt Kunti Devi and Ors. Vs The State Of Jharkhand And Anr.

Shri Amit Saha And Anr. Vs State of Jharkhand And Anr.

Hari Shanker Singh Vs The State Of Jharkhand

Dashrath Durga Prasad Durga Durga Dashrath And Vs State of Jharkhand And Anr.