accused unit under Section 15 of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986. 4. Mr. Pandey Neeraj Rai, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner had established Company in the name and style of M/s Jharkhand Ispat Pvt. Ltd. in the year 2003 after taking no objection from the Jharkhand State Pollution Control Board. Subsequently, no objection was taken in the year 2005 when there was an expansion of the unit. Thereafter, the petitioner went on having no objection from the Jharkhand State Pollution Control Board every year. He further submits that when an application was filed for having no objection in the year 2012-13, an objection was raised to the effect that the petitioner since had expansion of the unit, need to have environmental clearance in terms of the Notification dated 14.09.2006 issued by the Central Government. Since it had not been taken, an order was passed for closer of the expanded unit. That order was challenged before this Court and this Court vide its order dated 24.03.2014 passed in W.P.(C) No.1125 of 2014 stayed that part of the order. He further submits that in spite of that, a complaint was filed, wherein, allegation is made against the company and the company is not made accused. He submits that the cognizance has been taken under Section 15 of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 against the petitioner, who is the Director of the said Company. He refers to Section 16 of the said Act, 1986 and submits that the person can be prosecuted looking to his day-to-day affairs of the company. He submits that vicarious liability in absence of any averment cannot be made against the petitioner, who happens to be the Director of the said company.
