The High Court granted bail to the petitioners in a criminal case under the Environment (Protection) Act. The court held that mixed questions of fact and law required a trial and directed the lower court to complete the trial.
Criminal Original Petition dismissed; trial directed to be completed by the lower court.
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.
Crl.O.P.No.19523 of 2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 19.10.2023
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN
Crl.O.P.No.19523 of 2016
and Crl.M.P.Nos.9145 & 9146 of 2016
Vs.
The Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board, Rep. by its District Environmental Engineer, R.Kannan, Maraimalai Adigalar Street, Maraimalai Nagar, Kancheepuram District.
... Respondent
Prayer: Criminal Original petition filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, to call for the records relating to the complaint in C.C.No.347 of 2015 on the file of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chengleput and quash the same.
For Petitioner : Mr.S.Kothandaraman For Respondents : Mr.R.Shunmugasundaram Advocate General Assisted by Ms.R.Shanmugavalli Standing Counsel for TNPCB
Page 1 of 10
Crl.O.P.No.19523 of 2016
ORDER
This petition has been filed to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.347 of 2015 on the file of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chengleput, thereby taken cognizance for the offence under Section 15 r/w 16 & 19(a) of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986, as against the petitioners.
Page 2 of 10
Crl.O.P.No.19523 of 2016
required construction of new projects or activities or the expansion of modernization of existing projects or activities listed in the Schedule of its notification entailing capacity addition with change in process and or technology shall be undertaken in any part of India only after the prior environment clearance from the Central government or as the case may be, by the State level environment impact assessment authority.
residential building area of more than 20,000 square meters. Therefore, it requires prior environmental clearance, as per the notification which is categorized as category B project as per schedule 8(a) of the above said notification. The accused project falls under category B Project and they have to obtained prior the environment clearance from the Tamil Nadu State Level Environment Impact Assessment Authority (SEIAA).
Crl.O.P.No.19523 of 2016
committed offence under Section 15(1) r/w Section 16(1) of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986.
that admittedly, the petitioners applied for prior environment clearance on 24.07.2013 and it was pending. Further, the respondent is not competent to file the present complaint. To initiate prosecution, the petitioners were not served with show cause notice. They were fined by the National Green Tribunal, New Delhi, for the very same set of allegations that they have commenced construction without prior environment clearance. Therefore, the complaint is hit by doctrine of double jeopardy.
6.1. He further submitted that the notification dated 12.12.2012
and subsequent notification dated 27.06.2013 were challenged before the National Green Tribunal and both the notification were declared as ultra vires. Therefore, the prosecution initiated under the above notifications also cannot be sustained, since already the notification itself declared as ultra vires . Hence, he prayed to quash the present proceedings.
Page 4 of 10
Crl.O.P.No.19523 of 2016
perused the materials placed before this Court.
Page 5 of 10
Crl.O.P.No.19523 of 2016
meters and therefore, it requires prior environment clearance from the appropriate authorities under the provisions of the environment impact assessment notification issued in the year 2006, by the Ministry of Environment and Forest, dated 14.09.2006. Further, the said project comes under the categorized as Project-B of the Schedule 8(b) of the environment impact assessment notification of 2006. Though the petitioners applied for prior environment clearance on 24.07.2013, it was pending while the petitioners commenced the construction and substantial progress have been made without prior environment clearance.
and confirmed the construction put up by the petitioners without prior environment clearance. It is violative of provision under Section 15(1) r/w 16(1) of the Environment (Protection) Act. Therefore, the petitioner were served with show cause notice dated 15.07.2014. Thereafter, the respondent initiated prosecution by private complaint under Section 200 or Cr.P.C., for the offence under Section 15 r/w 16 & 19(a) of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986.
Page 6 of 10
Crl.O.P.No.19523 of 2016
by the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate change, superseding the notification dated 16.11.2010. However, in that notification it was Page 7 of 10
Crl.O.P.No.19523 of 2016
stated that in case of violation in respect of notification dated 14.09.2006, it will proceed to verify the veracity of the complaint through the regional offices and upon such verification, the explanation of project proponent will be asked for. If the Ministry is satisfied that it is a case of violation, then before proceeding any further, the authorities would require the project proponent to submit its environment related policy, plan of action and a written commitment to ensure that violation will not be repeated within 60 days in terms of the office memorandum dated 12.12.2012.
no way connected with the earlier notification dated 14.09.2006. In fact, for the violation committed by the petitioners, they had paid fine amount and it is nothing to do with the criminal prosecution initiated by the respondent for the offence under Section 15 r/w 16 & 19(a) of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986. Therefore, it would not be presumed that the criminal prosecution is hit by doctrine of double jeopardy.
Page 8 of 10
Crl.O.P.No.19523 of 2016
question of facts and law and it requires detailed trial as such, the entire proceeding cannot be quashed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. All the grounds can be considered only before the trial Court during the trial by let in evidence. Hence, this Court is not inclined to quash the proceeding. The trial Court viz., the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chengleput, is directed to complete the trial in C.C.No.347 of 2015 and dispose the same, as early as possible, if not already disposed of.
dismissed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
19.10.2023
Internet: Yes Index : Yes/No Speaking/Non Speaking order
rts
Page 9 of 10
Crl.O.P.No.19523 of 2016
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN. J,
rts
To
Crl.O.P.No.19523 of 2016 and Crl.M.P.Nos.9145 & 9146 of 2016
19.10.2023
Page 10 of 10
2 issues framed by the court
Whether criminal proceedings for violation of Environment (Protection) Act can be quashed without a detailed trial.
Whether the doctrine of double jeopardy bars criminal prosecution after earlier penalties by the National Green Tribunal.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
M/s. SSM Builders and Promoters K.Santhanam
K.Santhanam
The Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
