Sarojamma v. Karnataka State Pollution Control Board

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF JULY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 7951 OF 2019 BETWEEN: SAROJAMMA AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS W/O CHINNEGOWDA G M GOLLARAHALLI VILLAGE KANTHAPURA POST HONAKERE HOBLI MANDYA - 571 432. …PETITIONER (BY Ms. ADITHI ACHAIAH BOLLIAPANDA, ADV. FOR SRI JAYANTH V., ADVOCATE) AND: KARNATAKA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD REGIONAL OFFICE BEHIND GOVT. COLLEGE MANDYA-571 401 REPRESENTED BY DEPUTY ENVIRONMENT OFFICER. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI GURURAJA JOSHI, ADVOCATE)

THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 29.05.2019 PASSED BY ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, NAGAMANGALA, MANDYA, IN C.C.NO.154/2019 (P.C.R.NO.39/2019) TAKING COGNIZANCE OF OFFENCES P/U/S 21,

by ANUSHA V Location: High Court of Karnataka

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

THIS PETITION IS 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.154/2019 in pursuance of private complaint in PCR no.39/2019 filed by Deputy Environmental Officer - respondent - Karnataka State Pollution Control Board (KSPCB) alleging offences punishable under Sections 21, 31(A) and 37 of Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 ('Air Act') on file of Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Nagamangala, Mandya, this petition is filed.

¶2Ms.Adithi Achaiah Bolliapanda, learned counsel appearing for Sri Jayanth V., advocate for petitioner submitted that respondent - Deputy Environmental Officer had filed private complaint in PCR no.39/2019 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 through 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 Gururaja Joshi, learned counsel 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 Official Memorandum 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 effect to provision i.e., Section 43 of Air Act as well as to prevent abuse of process, impugned proceedings in CC no.154/2019 on file of Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Nagamangala, Mandya, stand quashed, however, reserving liberty to Board to take action in accordance with law. Sd/- (RAVI V HOSMANI) JUDGE

AV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 38