Dismissed

Environmental Engineer v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC6 Nov 2023CRLA/34/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A criminal appeal filed by the Telangana State Pollution Control Board to set aside a dismissal order. The lower court dismissed the Environment Act complaint for non-prosecution despite giving multiple adjournments. The High Court refused to interfere.

What did the court decide?

Criminal Appeal dismissed; complaint under Section 19 Environmental (Protection) Act remains dismissed.

Environmental Engineer Vs The State of Telangana — Environment and Pollution | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

IVIONDAY ,THE SIXTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER

¶6

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO: 34 OF 2021

¶7

Crl.Appeal Under Section 378 (4) of Crl.P.C. aggrieved by the order dated 25-09-2019 in C.C.No. 2492 oI 2016 on the file of the Court of the XI Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Secunderabad.

¶8

Between:

¶9

Environmental Engineer, Telangana State Pollution Control Board Regional Office Nampally, Hyderabad Rep. by M.Dayanand Environmental Engineer

¶10

-..APPELLANT/ Complainant

¶11

AND

¶12

The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor High Court Building at Hyderabad.

¶13

Sri D. Aravind, (Authorised Signatory) M/s. Navayuga Engineering Company Limited Plot No.379, Road No.10 Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad - 500 033

¶14

...RESPODENTS/ Accused

¶15

Counsel for the Appellant: SRl. A. VISHNU VARDHANA REDDY( SC FOR TSPcB)

¶16

Counsel for the Respondent No.1 :THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶17

Counsel for the Respondent No. 2: SRI N. NAVEEN KUMAR

¶18

The Court delivered the following Judgment

¶19

¶20

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE^K.SURENDER

¶21

CRIMINAL APPEAL No.34 oF 202L

¶22

JUDGMENT:

¶23

This Criminal Appeal is hled under^{Section 482 of the} Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973^{(for short 'Cr.P.C-')by the} Appellant-Complainant-Environmental^{Engineerto set aside} the docket order dated 25.09.2019 in^{C.C.No.2492 of 2016} passed by the learned XI Additional Chief^Metropolitan Magistrate, at Secunderabad, registered^{for the offences} under Sections 19 and 7 read^{with Section 15 ofthe} Environmental (Protection) Act, 1986 and^{Section 190 read} with 200 of the Code of Crimina-I Procedure,^1973.

¶24

According to the complainant, the^accused had^started construction of project in the name of "Commercial^{Mall and} Multiplex" in Sy.No.1O3 11,2,^{(old Sy.No.7S and75l1), Town} Sy.No.9, Ward 9A, Block-B, Begumpet, Hyderabad^on 14.O6.2OL6. As per the Environment Impact^Assessment Notification, 2006, the accused had started^construction without obtaining clearance from the^{Environment for starting} construction. The construction is in violation of^the Environmental Act and Rules. The said complaint was filed in

¶25

¶26

the month of August 2016.^{TLre impugnedorder, dated} 25.09.2019 which rvas^passed by^{the XI AdditionalChief} Metropolitan Magistrate at^{Secunderabad is as under:-}

¶27

" Counsel for the accused^{represented. Memo} ftled. Complainant absent. No^{represerxation} for^complainant. Ample adjoumments uere^{giuen to the complainantto proceed} with the case. But, the complatnant failed^{to do so in spite of} condittonal order. Hence,^{amplaint isdismissed} for^non prosecution.'

¶28

Learned counsel for the^{appella-nt would submitthat the} case is serious in nature^{and the acts of the accused have an} impact on the environment,^{for which reason,the} complainant has to be^{given a fair chanceto prosecutehis} case.

¶29

As seen from the order,^{there was no representationby} the complainant,^{having hled the complaintin the year2O16'} It is specihcally mentioned^{by the learned Magistrate that} several adjournments^{were given for the cornplainartto} proceed with the case. However,^{the complainant failedto do} so inspite of^{passing aConditionalOrder- Inthe said} circumstances, the^{complaint wasdismissed.}

¶30

¶31

, ,

¶32

The learned counsel relied on the decision of the Honble Apex Court reported in Mohd. Azeem Vs. A. Venkateshl. In the said judgment, their Lordships were dea-ling with the complaint which was dismissed on default of appearance on a solitary instance

¶33

The said judgment is not applicable to the facts of the present case when the complaint was not pursuing his case for a period of three (03) years and failed to appear for several adjournments. The docket proceedings are not filed by the appellant to show that he had appeared and prosecuted his case diligently. Having hled complaint, the complainant had wasted Court's time by not prosecuting his case. If the complainant and the counsel do not appear, though Conditional Orders are passed, the Court will have no other option, but to dismiss the complaint.

¶34

7 . There are no grounds to interfere with the order of the dismissal of the learned XI Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, at Secunderabad.

¶35

Accordingly, the Criminal Appea-t is dismissed.

' 1zooz1^{t scc tzo}

I ,]

... '!

,.:

Miscellaneous^{applications pending, if any, shall stand}

closed.

To,

Sd/. T. SRINIVAS DEPUW REGISTRAR (. .,' n/

¶48

//TRUE COPY//

¶49

SECNOJOFFICER

¶50

The^{Xl Additional ChiefMetropolitan Magistrate'at Secunderabad(With}

¶51

¶52

2 3::%t,x'JI,o.^{,,."*u VARDHANA REDDY( sc FoR rspcB) Advocate}

¶53

8,1J"?i"^{sri. N' Naveen kumar' Advocate [oPUC]'}

¶54

3 4. two^{CO CoPies}

kul

/1,
I

HIGH COURT

DATED:06/11/2023

JUDGMENT

Iti 6 sTAr {' o
o 0 5 JAN 2024 o
- ,it t,'. .,/ 2
* DF.l P 61p.t*') /'

¶63

CRLA.No.34 ot 2021

¶64

DISMISSING THE CRL.APPEAL

¶65

rP3

¶66

Environmental Engineer v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Environmental Engineer v. The State of Telangana

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

Syed Subani, Vs The State of Telangana

Mallarapu Sravan Kumar Goud Vs The State of Telangana

Diwas Sagar Vs The State of Telangana

Thirumanashetti Subba Rao, Karimnagar Dist. Vs the State of Ts., Rep. by P.P. and Another

Akela Uday shankar Vs The State of telangana and another

M Swapna Vs The State of Telangana and Another