CRM-M No.34688 of 2009 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. DATE OF DECISION: 22.07.2011 1) CRM-M No.34688 of 2009 (O&M) M/s Unitech Developers and Projects Private Limited and others …Petitioners Vs. Regional Officer, Gurgaon Region …Respondent 2) CRM-M No.4750 of 2010 (O&M) M/s Unitech Limited and others …Petitioners Vs. Regional Officer, Gurgaon Region …Respondent 3) CRM-M No.4751 of 2010 (O&M) M/s Unitech Limited and others …Petitioners Vs. Regional Officer, Gurgaon Region …Respondent 4) CRM-M No.4752 of 2010 (O&M) M/s Unitech Limited and others …Petitioners Vs. Regional Officer, Gurgaon Region …Respondent CRM-M No.34688 of 2009 (O&M) -2- 5) CRM-M No.4753 of 2010 (O&M) M/s Unitech Limited and others …Petitioners Vs. Regional Officer, Gurgaon Region …Respondent 6) CRM-M No.4754 of 2010 (O&M) M/s Unitech Limited and others …Petitioners Vs. Regional Officer, Gurgaon Region …Respondent 7) CRM-M No.4755 of 2010 (O&M) M/s Unitech Developers and Hotels Private Limited and another …Petitioners Vs. Regional Officer, Gurgaon Region …Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI Present: Mr. Vikas Bahl, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Arun Walia, Advocate for the respondent. **** AJAY TEWARI, J (ORAL) CRM-M No.34688 of 2009 (O&M) -3- This order shall dispose of CRM-M Nos.34688 of 2009 and 4750 to 4755 of 2010. These are similar petitions challenging the summoning order passed by the Environment Court summoning the petitioners in a complaint under Section 15 of The Environment (Protection) Act, 1986. The two grounds taken by learned counsel for the petitioners are that firstly the complaint was filed in the year 2009 while environment clearance had already been obtained in the year 2007 and secondly that the Magistrate was required to hold an enquiry under Section 202 Cr.P.C. as mandated by the judgment in the matter of S.K. Bhowmik vs. S.K. Arora and another reported in 2007(4) R.C.R. (Criminal) 650. Section 202 Cr.P.C. reads as under:- “202. Postponement of issue of process: (1) Any Magistrate, on receipt of a complaint of an offence of which he is authorized to take cognizance or which has been made over to him under Section 192, may, if he thinks fit, postpone the issue of process against the accused, and either enquire into the case himself or direct an investigation to be made by a police officer or by such other person as he thinks fit, for the purpose of deciding whether or not there is sufficient ground for proceeding.” CRM-M No.34688 of 2009 (O&M) -4- Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent has accepted the fact that on the date of filing of complaint the petitioners did have the environment clearance. He however argues that the allegation against the petitioners was that they had started the construction work before obtaining the environment clearance and to this extent the complaint was not happily worded. As regards the second argument, Mr. Arun Walia, Advocate has very fairly stated that this indeed the position in law. In view of the fair statement made by learned counsel for the respondent that the complaints are not happily worded, I deem it appropriate to allow these petitions and set aside the complaints. Ordered accordingly. However liberty is granted to the respondent to file a fresh complaint. Learned counsel for the petitioners has also very fairly stated that in case any fresh complaint is filed no plea of limitation/lapse will be raised by the petitioners and they will oppose it on merits in case after that inquiry summons are issued. A photocopy of this order be placed on the files of connected cases. ( AJAY TEWARI ) July 22, 2011 JUDGE ashish