Delhi High Court: A petition was filed under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code seeking to set aside the impugned order dated 15-05-2012 passed by District Court, Rohini and quash the summoning order dated 06-01-2011 based on the flawed complaints filed against the petitioner. Amit Sharma, J., sets aside the summoning orders and held that held that the complaints filed against the petitioner lacked legal validity as they were not initiated by the competent authority as mandated by Section 19 of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986.
The case involves a complaint filed by the Delhi Pollution Control Committee (DPCC) against Aditya Birla Retail Ltd. and several individuals, including the petitioner, who held key positions at the company’s retail store named “More Mega Store” located in Rohini, New Delhi. The complaint stemmed from an inspection conducted by the DPCC on 30-07-2010, during which it was found that the store was using and storing plastic bags in violation of environmental regulations. The individuals named in the complaint, including the petitioner, who was CEO of the company at the relevant point in time, were accused of being involved in these violations. Following the inspection, the DPCC filed a complaint under Sections 15, 16, and 19 of The Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 against the accused persons. The Metropolitan Magistrate, after taking cognizance of the offences alleged in the complaint, issued summons against all the accused individuals, including the petitioner.
Aggrieved by the summoning order, the petitioner filed a revision petition challenging the order before the Additional Sessions Judge (ASJ). However, the ASJ upheld the summoning order in a decision dated 15-05-2012. Subsequently, the petitioner filed the present petition seeking to challenge the order of the ASJ dated 15-05-2012, which upheld the summoning order issued by the Metropolitan Magistrate based on the complaint filed by the DPCC.
Counsel for the petitioner asserted that the complaints filed against them lacked legal validity due to non-compliance with the provisions of Section 19 of the Act. They argued that only a competent authority, as mandated by the Act, could initiate legal proceedings, and the complaints in question were initiated by an officer who did not possess the requisite authority. Emphasizing the importance of adhering to statutory procedures, especially in matters concerning environmental protection, the petitioner urged the court to invalidate the summoning orders issued based on these flawed complaints.
The Delhi Pollution Control Committee (DPCC) defended the legality of the complaints filed against the petitioner. They argued that the complaints were filed by officers authorized by the DPCC, which had been duly empowered by the Central Government to initiate legal proceedings under Section 19 of the Act. The respondent contended that the delegation of authority to file complaints was in accordance with the Act’s provisions and the notifications issued by the Central Government. Stressing the urgency of enforcing environmental regulations to address violations and protect public health and welfare, the respondent sought to uphold the validity of the summoning orders issued based on the complaints filed by the authorized officers of the DPCC.
The Court analyzed the legal landscape surrounding environmental protection laws, focusing mainly on Sections 19 and 23 of The Environment (Protection) Act, 1986. These sections delineated the procedural framework for initiating legal action and delegating enforcement powers under the Act. The Court scrutinized the notifications and resolutions issued by the Central Government, which conferred authority upon specific entities or individuals to file complaints under the Act.
The Court remarked that as per notification No. S.O. 624(E) dated 03.09.1996, the Central Government authorized the Chairman and Member Secretary of the Delhi Pollution Control Committee (DPCC) to file complaints under Section 19 of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986. However, the notification did not grant the authority for further delegation of power by the Chairman and Member Secretary to file such complaints.”
In P. Pramila v. State of Karnataka, (2015) 17 SCC 651, the Court held that such authorizations to further delegate the power by the Chairman and the Member Secretary is not permissible unless the same has been provided for in the provisions of the statute or rules. The Court engaged in a comparative analysis to glean insights into similar provisions found in other environmental statutes, notably The Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 facilitating a nuanced interpretation of the provisions of The Environment (Protection) Act, 1986, by drawing parallels and highlighting analogous principles from related legislation.
Moreover, the Court invoked the principle of delegatus non potest delegare, emphasizing the limits of authority delegated under the Act underscoring the importance of maintaining procedural integrity and ensuring that delegated powers were not further sub-delegated beyond the entities or individuals authorized by the Central Government.
The Court remarked that “In the facts and circumstances of the present case, the intention of the legislature is clear to the extent that only the Central Government or any authority or person authorized by the Central Government in this behalf could file a complaint under Section 19 of the Act and Central Government vide the aforesaid notification has authorized the Chairman and the Member Secretary of the State Pollution Control Committee to file a complaint under Section 19 of the Act. It is a different thing to say that once a complaint has been filed by the competent authority, i.e., the Chairman or the Member Secretary then the same can be pursued by an officer authorized with the permission of the concerned Court. In the considered opinion of this Court, the cognizance of offences under the present Act could only be taken in the manner provided under Section 19 of the Act.”
Thus, the Court held that the complaints filed against the petitioner lacked legal validity because they were not initiated by the competent authority as mandated by Section 19 of the Act. The complaints were filed by an officer who did not possess the requisite authority to initiate legal proceedings under the Act. Consequently, the summoning orders issued based on these flawed complaints were invalidated, and the integrity of the statutory framework governing environmental regulations was upheld.
[Thomas Varghese v. State, 2024 SCC OnLine Del 1741, decided on 13-03-2024]
Advocates who appeared in this case :
Mr. Dayan Krishnan, Senior Advocate Mr. Vikas Kakkar, Mr. Shivam Sachdeva, Mr. Dilip Kumar Rana, Mr. Amit Dubey and Mr. Sarthak Dubey, Advocates for petitioner
Mr. Aman Usman, APP for State. Mr. Balendu Shekhar, Mr. Raj Kumar Maurya, Ms. Tanisha Samanta and Ms. Krishna Chaitanya, Advocates for R-2.
