Crl. Revision No.981 of 1999 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Revision No.981 of 1999 (O&M) Date of decision: 04.10.2011 The Haryana State Pollution Control Board ....Petitioner Versus M/s. S.P.B. Hotmix Plant, Village Pali, Faridabad and others ....Respondents Crl. Revision No.983 of 1999 (O&M) The Haryana State Pollution Control Board ....Petitioner Versus M/s. R.K. Goyal, Hotmix Plants, Village Pali, Faridabad and others ....Respondents Crl. Revision No.985 of 1999 (O&M) The Haryana State Pollution Control Board ....Petitioner Versus M/s. Jagdish Chander Suneja Village Pali, Faridabad and others ....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK SINGH Present: - None for the petitioner. Mr. Gaurav Dhir, DAG, Haryana. 1.Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2.Whether to be referred to the Reporters or not? 3.Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? ***** ALOK SINGH, J (ORAL) This judgment shall dispose of Crl. Revision Nos.981, 983 and 985 of 1999 as common question of facts and law are involved For the sake of brevity, facts are being taken from Crl. Revision No.981 of 1999. Crl. Revision No.981 of 1999 (O&M) -2- I have perused the record carefully. Learned Presiding Officer in the impugned order dated 21.4.1999 has observed as under: - “In order to establish that the Chairman was authorised by the complainant Board to launch prosecution against the defaulting unit because in the Agenda Item No.108.5, there is no proposal by the complainant board to authorise the Chairman to delegate the power to launch prosecution against the defaulting unit and in the absence of proposal the Agenda Item to delegate the power to the Chairman, the writing in the Minutes Book will not delegate the power of the complainant Board to the Chairman as the same was never proposed to be delegated to the Chairman as the same was never proposed to be delegated to the Chairman. Moreover, the said writing has been scribed after the approving of the Agenda Item No.108.5. Therefore, it seems that the said writing has only been added lateron in a hasty manner just to launch the prosecution of the units without taking into confidence the complainant Board. The complainant Board which consists of 14 members and resolutions are passed by the members who constituted the Board after the completion of the quorum of the Board and in the absence of complete quorum no resolution can be passed. Therefore, there was no proposal in the Agenda Item No.108.5 to delegate the power of the complainant Board to the Chairman then how the Chairman can be delegated power to launch prosecution which vests in the complainant Board under the law and thus the writing in the Minutes Book on 27.5.1997 against the Agenda Item No.108.5 is no delegation of power to the Chairman to launch prosecution and when the Chairman has not been validly and legally authorised to sanction prosecution, in the absence of meeting of the complainant Board then the order allegedly passed by the Chairman, is no order in the eyes of law to launch prosecution against the accused and as such the launch of prosecution against the accused, in view of the Agenda Item No.108.5, is totally whimsical and illegal and not sustainable in the eyes of law. To this effect reliance can be placed upon Animal Feed Diaries Vs. Orrisa, AIR 1995, page 84 and N.D. Jain, Director of M/s. Punjab Concast Steels Ltd. & Others Vs. Punjab State Pollution Control Board for Prevention & Control of Air Pollution & Others, Criminal Law Times (XXII-1995), page 60. Crl. Revision No.981 of 1999 (O&M) -3- Therefore, in my opinion, the order to launch prosecution is bad in the eyes of law and when the order to launch the prosecution is not sustainable then it will be futile exercise to summon the accused to face trial as the same would be nothing but an abuse of the process of the court to harass the accused to face trial in a complaint which suffers from inherit fatal lacuna. Thus, this court is not inclined to order the summoning of the accused to face trial in a complaint which contains serious lacuna and thus to meet the ends of justice, the present complaint is hereby dismissed for want of proper resolution/authorisation to file the present complaint. However, the complainant Board is at liberty to file fresh complaint after rectifying the mistakes if the law permits under the relevant provisions of the Air Act.” I find no illegality or jurisdictional error in the impugned order, therefore, revision petitions are dismissed. Photocopy of this order be placed on the files of connected cases. (Alok Singh) Judge October 04, 2011 R.S.