The High Court dismissed an application seeking to uphold the Lok Adalath's order discharging accused in a pollution offence case. The Court found that while the Lok Adalath lacked jurisdiction, the defect of non-clearance was cured by subsequent issuance, warranting the discharge.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 09TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2014
BEFORE
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND BYRAREDDY
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION No.16 OF 2008
BETWEEN:
Karnataka State Pollution Control Board, represented by its Environmental Officer, South Region – II, Bangalore – 560 001.
…PETITIONER
(By Shri. S.G.Kulkarni, Advocate)
AND:
…RESPONDENTS
(By Shri. R.N. Deshpande, Advocate)
2
This Criminal Revision Petition is filed under Section 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, by the advocate for the petitioner praying to set aside the order of discharging the respondents passed on 22.9.2007 by the LokAdalath: Advocate-conciliator and Judge-Conciliator in C.C.No.186/2006 on the file of the Prl./Additional Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.) and Judicial Magistrate First Class, Anekal.
This petition coming on for Hearing this day, the court made the following:
O R D E R
Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner. The
petitioner, Karnataka State Pollution Control Board, which is a statutory authority, had filed a private complaint against the respondents, namely, the Karnataka Housing Board (KHB) and the Housing Commissioner of the KHB, for an offence punishable under Section 15 of the Environment (Protection) Act,1986 (Hereinafter referred to as the ‘EP Act’, for brevity), on the footing that the respondents had commenced construction work without obtaining prior environmental clearance under the Environment Impact Assessment notification before the Magistrate, who had taken cognizance
3
and issued process to the respondents. The respondents had entered appearance before the Magistrate, and the case was pending. During the pendency of the case, the matter was referred to the Lok Adalath created under the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 (Hereinafter referred to as the ‘LS Act’, for brevity), and the Lok Adalath, advised the parties to settle the matter, as it was a fit case where it could be compromised and accused no.2, the Housing Commissioner was a public servant and the case had been filed against him in his official capacity. And further that the Board had issued a notice calling upon him to stop construction on 31.3.2005 and accordingly had stopped construction in respect of the work being carried on, in respect of Surya Nagar Township, in land bearing Survey Nos.15 to 42 and 108 of Iggalur and Banahalli villages and as per the notice, it was stated that he had obtained permission from the complainant – Board on 20.6.2005, subject to further permission from the Ministry of Environment and Forests and that a clearance certificate was received from the
4
Ministry to proceed with the construction work. It is in consonance with the said clearance that the construction work had been taken up, but, this was on the basis of a letter and not on the Clearance Certificate, which was required to be issued. The Certificate was indeed issued at a later point of time. This however, was not accepted by the complainant. Therefore, a complaint having been filed, the Lok Adalath has observed that it was a matter which could be amicably closed and has discharged the accused. It is that order which is sought to be questioned in the present proceedings.
that in terms of sub-section (5) of Section (19) of the LS Act, the Lok Adalath would have no jurisdiction in respect of any case or matter relating to an offence not compoundable under any other law. Insofar as violation is concerned, it was violation of Section 15 of the EP Act, and the act nowhere provides for compounding of the said offence nor can be brought under Section 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,
5
1973 (Hereinafter referred to as the ‘Cr.PC’, for brevity) and it cannot be said that it was an offence, which was compoundable or which could be compounded with the permission of the court. Therefore, the question of the Lok Adalath having entered upon the matter and having discharged the accused was impermissible in law and hence the petitioner is before this court.
the fact remains that the respondents namely, KHB, which is a statutory body and the Housing Commissioner, who represents the KHB, have admittedly proceeded with construction without clearance from the Ministry of Environment and Forests, which clearance has been subsequently obtained. Though the finding was that the construction had been commenced on the basis of a letter without awaiting a formal clearance certificate, the said certificate having been received later, the defect, if any, stands cured. Therefore, from a highly technical point of view, it can be said that there was indeed violation of the law. But
6
subsequent clearance having been obtained, applying the doctrine of feeding the grant by estoppel, it can be said that the defect, if any, in clearance is not preceded with the construction having commenced and which can be said to be of such a nature warranting prosecution and punishment. Therefore, notwithstanding the fact that the Lok Adalath was acting without jurisdiction, it is possible for this court even to act under Section 482 of the Code of Cr.PC and to quash the proceedings.
Consequently, there is no irregularity of such a nature which would warrant interference of this court. On the other hand, in exercise of power under Section 482 of the Cr.PC, the proceedings are set at naught. The petition stands disposed of.
Sd/- JUDGE
nv
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the Lok Adalath had jurisdiction to discharge accused in a case involving an offence under Section 15 of the Environment (Protection) Act which is not compoundable.
Whether the High Court should exercise its power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to intervene in the proceedings despite the lack of Lok Adalath jurisdiction.
5 provisions across 3 enactments
Karnataka State Pollution Control Board
Karnataka Housing Board
S. Lakshminarayan
Anand Byrareddy
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
