Uma E v. Karnataka State Pollution Control Board

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF JULY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI CRIMINAL PETITION NO.6872 OF 2019 BETWEEN:

UMA E. AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS W/O RAMALINGEGOWDA, GANGASAMUDRA GRAMA BANKAPURA ANCHE NAGAMANGALA TALUK MANDYA - 571 432

…PETITIONER (BY SRI PRANESH JOSHI, ADVOCATE FOR SRI M. MANJUNATH, ADVOCATE)

AND:

KARNATAKA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD REGIONAL OFFICE BEHIND GOVT. COLLEGE MANDYA - 571 401 REPRESENTED BY DEPUTY ENVIRONMENTAL OFFICER.

…RESPONDENT (BY SRI GURU RAGHAVENDRA M, ADVOCATE FOR SRI GURURAJ JOSHI, ADVOCATE)

THIS CRL.P IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 CR.P.C. PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 19.07.2019 PASSED BY THE HON'BLE ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE, JMFC, NAGAMANGALA, MANDYA IN C.C NO.347/2019 (P.C.R. NO.57/2019) TAKING COGNIZANCE OF OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS

by ANUSHA V Location: High Court of Karnataka

21, 31 (A) AND 37 OF THE AIR ACT, 1981 AND ALL FURTHER PROCEEDINGS THEREIN (i.e., ANNEXURE A) AND ETC

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI

ORAL ORDER Challenging proceedings in CC no.347/2019 in pursuance of private complaint in PCR no.57/2019 filed by Deputy Environmental Officer - respondent - Karnataka State Pollution Control Board ('KSPCB') alleging offences punishable under Sections 21, 31A and 37 of Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 ('Air Act') on file of Additional Civil Judge and J.M.F.C., Nagamangala, Mandya, this petition is filed.

¶2Sri Pranesh Joshi, learned counsel appearing for Sri V. Manjunath, advocate for petitioner submitted that respondent - Deputy Environmental Officer had filed private complaint in PCR no.57/2019 against (accused) petitioner herein alleging that without obtaining licence from KSPCB, accused was running stone crushing and quarrying unit. It was submitted, Section 43 of Air Act, provided for taking of cognizance in pursuance of complaint made by Board or any

officer authorized on its behalf and though Official Memorandum dated 08-11.03.2013 authorized Deputy Environmental Officer as well as Assistant Environmental Officers to file cases on behalf of Board, same could be done only after obtaining approval from Chairman. It was submitted, without obtaining such approval, Deputy Environmental Officer had filed complaint and same would be in violation of Section 43 of Air Act and as such proceedings were liable to be quashed.

¶3Sri Guru Raghavendra M., learned counsel appearing for Sri Gururaj Joshi, advocate for respondent would however oppose petition on ground that petitioner was operating quarry without license and therefore, initiation of proceedings was justified. He is however unable to countenance contention of petitioner that Deputy Environmental Officer, Mandya had filed complaint without obtaining approval from Chairman of Board.

¶4Heard learned counsel and perused material on record.

¶5This petition is by accused challenging proceedings on sole ground that complaint having been filed by incompetent person. Perusal of private complaint would indicate that complaint is filed by Deputy Environmental Officer, Mandya. Though para-3 of complaint indicates that complainant was empowered to file complaint in pursuance of Board resolution dated 08-11.03.2013, perusal would indicate that same was subject to obtaining approval from Chairman. Since approval of Chairman is admittedly absent, initiation of proceedings would be by incompetent person.

¶6Consequently petition would require to be succeed. Accordingly to give effective provision i.e., Section 43 of Air Act as well as to prevent abuse of process, impugned proceedings in CC no.347/2019 on file of Additional Civil Judge and J.M.F.C., Nagamangala, Mandya stand quashed, however, reserving liberty to Board to take action in accordance with law. Sd/- (RAVI V HOSMANI) JUDGE

GRD List No.: 1 Sl No.: 20