Water Pollution Act

Ans: According to Section 25 of Water ( Prevention and Control) Act, 1974 , no person is allowed to set up an industry or start a new operation or processor to any treatment of sewage without prior approval of the state pollution control board, the state pollution control board may grant him a notice of approval and only after that he is entitled to continue or start a new business. If a person starts a new operation before prior approval of the board, the board may impose any conditions as it may think fit for not obtaining notice of approval prior to set up an industry. 

Ans:  Section 21 of the water Act empowers the state pollution control board or any employee on its behalf to analyze any stream or well for the purpose of preventing and controlling water purpose. The state board also has the power to stop any person to enter into any poisonous, noxious or polluting matter determined in accordance with the standards laid down in the Act.

Ans: According to Section 20 of the water Act, 1974, the state board also has the power to inspect any land, conduct surveys or gauge in an area if it thinks fit for controlling or preventing water pollution.  The state pollution control board is an statutory organization established under the water( Prevention and Control of Pollution) act, 1974  which works under the supervision of the Central Pollution Control Board to implement the environmental laws and rules within the respective state for the protection of the environment. The state pollution control board has the power to inspect any land , conduct suryeys or guage in an area if it thinks fit for controlling or preventing water pollution.  The state pollution control board can also ask any company, industry to dispose of the information pertaining to the construction, installation, and operation of its establishment. 

Ans: That the Appellant No. 3 in the complaint letter, Ashok Bhave, is a senior man of about 75 years, who retired from the Indian Navy in the year 1979 and is also a pensioner, who did not have full knowledge of the day- to- day activities of the company and was also living in Mumbai at that time. He had been residing and currently due to health reasons, he is residing at his residence in Mumbai only. The counter- appellant had filed a complaint without proper information, appointing Ashok Bhave as the director/ occupier and making him an accused on the basis of false statements which was initially zero.

Ans: That the counter- appellant has mentioned in his complaint that all the members, officers and employees working in the complainant board come under the category of public servants and Dr. Second Class Officer, authorized by the concerned regional officer on behalf of the complainant board. N.K. Verma, Scientist has been authorized to sign and submit the present complaint letter.

Ans: That the Appellant Industry is a registered company under the Companies Act 1956, whose registered address is Western Express Highway, Chakala Sahara Road, Andheri (East), Mumbai and a unit of the company is Plot No. 38-42, 43A-1, 44. -50 is located in New Industrial Area-2, Mandideep, District Raisen, which is a large / medium scale industry. After being established by the Appellant Company in the year 2004 in New Industrial Area-2, Mandideep, District Raisen, as per the rules from time to time, Section 25/26 of Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution Act) 1974 and Section 25/26 of Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution Act) 1981. Under Section 21 of the IPC, it is being operated only after obtaining valid consent from the counter- appellant board and at that time also valid consent was obtained. The conditions previously imposed by the counter- appellant Board were being followed by the appellant company as per the rules, hence no action of any kind had ever been taken ...

Ans: That the counter- appellant filed a complaint under Section 200 S.P.R. The application of production in the industry without the consent of the Board and water (pollution prevention and Section 25/44/45A of the Water Control Act) 1974 (hereinafter referred to as the Water Act) and Section 21/37/39 of the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution Act) 1981 (hereinafter referred to as the Air Act) . The complaint was submitted on the basis of violation of the consent conditions given by the Board under this Act.

Supreme Court of India Standard Chartered Bank and others vs Directorate Of Enforcement and others on 24 February, 2006. Bench: Cji Y.K. Sabharwal, C.K. Thakker, P.K. Balasubramanyan. In paragraph 29 of the judgment, it was argued before Hon'ble the Supreme Court that when an offence punishable with imprisonment and fine is alleged against the company, the court is not left with any discretion to enforce any one of them and consequently the company being a juristic person cannot be prosecuted for the offence for which custodial sentence is a mandatory punishment, was negated by Hon'ble the Supreme Court and it held that if custodial sentence is the only punishment prescribed for the offence then a company cannot be prosecuted. But, where custodial sentence and fine are prescribed modes of punishment, the court can impose the sentence of fine on a company which is found guilty, as the sentence of imprisonment is impossible to be carried out. Hon'ble the Supreme Court placed ...