Criminal Revision No. 676 of 1999 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, at Chandigarh. Criminal Revision No. 676 of 1999 Date of Decision: 11.2.2010 The Haryana State Pollution Control Board, Chandigarh …Petitioner Versus M/s Satyam Synfab Limited and Others …Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA. Present: None for the petitioner. None for respondents No.1 to 3. Ms. Hemlata Balhara, Assistant Advocate General, Haryana, for respondent No.4. Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J. (Oral) Nobody has caused appearance on behalf of the petitioner on 9.2.2010. Today also nobody is present. In these circumstances, this Court proceed to decide the present revision petition. Section 403 Cr.P.C. read as under:- “403. Option of Court to hear parties. Save as otherwise expressly provided by this Code no party has any right to be heard either personally or by pleader before any court exercising its powers of revision; but the court may, if it thinks fit, when exercising such powers, hear any party either personally or by pleader”. Criminal Revision No. 676 of 1999 2 The Haryana State Pollution Control Board, Chandigarh, filed a complaint under Sections 33, 43 and 44 of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as “1974 Act”) against the accused/respondents No.1 to 3 on the ground that they were discharging trade effluent without having installed any effluent treatment plant. The unit of the accused was issued notice to take consent vide Ex.P8 and Ex.P9. On 15.9.1990, the accused applied for consent for the year 1990-91, by filing an application Ex.P10. Thereafter, Show Cause Notices Ex.P11 to Ex.P13 were issued and on 13.3.1991 vide Ex.P14, the consent was refused. Thereafter, sample of the trade effluent was taken in November 1990 after giving notice Ex.P15. After following due procedure, sample was sent for analysis. As per the report of Public Analyst, the accused unit was discharging trade effluent more than the prescribed limited on the open land, which was injurious to the public. The Presiding Officer, Special Environment Court, Faridabad, discharged the accused. Aggrieved against the same, present revision petition has been filed. The Court below held that the accused unit applied for consent vide application Ex.P10 on 15.9.1990 and the consent was refused on 13.3.1991 vide Ex.P14. Thereafter, the application dated 15.9.1990 for obtaining consent for the year 1990-91 was pending. The same was neither accepted nor rejected by the Board. Therefore, statutory provisions contemplated under Section 25(7) of 1974 Act have not been complied with. The Court below further held that it was obligatory upon the complainant Board either to refuse or to grant consent, otherwise Criminal Revision No. 676 of 1999 3 deemed consent shall be considered. The Court below further held that it cannot be considered that the unit was operating without complying with the provisions of Sections 25 and 26 of the 1974 Act. The Court further held that there was no trade effluent by the accused unit more than the prescribed parameters under the Environmental Protection Act, 1986. A detailed discussion was held by the Court below to hold that the accused can be discharged. In the present case, the accused were discharged on 11.1.1999. The alleged sample was taken on 13.11.1990. A period of about 20 years is going to elapse. It seems that the petitioner Board has lost its vigour to take accused/respondents to the task and they are satisfied with the findings of the Court below. Hence, no interference is warranted in the present revision petition and the same is dismissed. (Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia) Judge February 11, 2010 “DK”