M/S DELHI BOTTLING CO. PVT. LTD. V. CENTRAL BOARD FOR THE PREVENTION AND CONTROL OF WATER POLLUTION, AIR 1986 DEL. 152
FACTS
M/s. Delhi Bottling Co. Pvt. Ltd. (for short ‘the Company’), has been carrying on the business of preparation of soft drinks under the trade names of Gold Spot, Limca, Thums Up, Rimzim and Soda Water etc. at their factory premises No. 60, Shivaji Marg, New Delhi. They are discharging trade effluents which ultimately fall in the stream i.e. river Yamuna. The Company duly obtained consent order under the provisions of Ss. 25 and 26 of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974. A complaint under S. 33(1) of the Act was filed by the Central Board for the Prevention and Control of Water Pollution. It was alleged that the Company has neither put up the treatment plant nor has started any preliminary step in that regard. It was further alleged that a sample of the trade effluents of the Company was lifted by the officials of the Board in the presence of a representative of the Company and the sample on analysis has been found as not conforming to the parameters of the consent order of the Company. It was prayed that the Company be restrained from causing pollution by discharge of trade effluents till the company sets up the required treatment plant and conforms to the quality of trade effluents according to the parameters as provided in the consent order.
HISTORY
The Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi, after obtaining the reply of the Company to the complaint of the Board and after hearing the parties, passed the impugned order restraining the Company from causing pollution of the stream by discharging the trade effluents till the required treatment plant is set up and conforming the quality of trade effluents according to the standards prescribed by the Board.
Feeling aggrieved by this order of the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, the Company have filed this petition under S. 482, Cr.P.C in the High Court. Hence the present case.
ISSUES
JUDGEMENT
The Court held that the Company alleges that the sample was not divided by the officials of the Board into two parts and no part thereof was given to the Company’s representative in spite of his request in that behalf. Further, No affidavit was filed by either side before the learned Magistrate in support of their respective claims of non division of sample into two parts. In such a situation the aforesaid allegations of the Company had to be taken as not controverted and thus admitted.
Further, the Court held that in view of the said pleadings of the parties it has to be taken that a demand was also made by the said representative to the officials of the Board to divide the sample into two parts and to get the same analysed in accordance with S. 21(5) of the Act, but that request was not acceded to. Thus, the Court held that the officials of the Board were not justified in getting the sample analysed from a laboratory only recognised by the Board instead of getting the same analysed from the laboratory of the Delhi Administration and without complying with the requirements of sub-s. (5) of S. 21 of the Act. That being so, the conclusion that the petitioners were discharging effluents in the stream which were likely to cause pollution is not sustainable. Consequently the impugned order is bad and is liable to be set aside.