- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37285 WP No. 41150 of 2019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE J.M.KHAZI WRIT PETITION NO. 41150 OF 2019 (GM-RES) BETWEEN: BABU RAO B S/O B MALLOJI RAO, AGED 64 YEARS, PROP: M/S BHARATH CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, R/AT NO.36/16, SHAKTI KUTEERA, VAIKUNTA MAIN ROAD, AECS LAYOUT, LAKSHMI NARAYANAPURA, KUNDALAHALLI BENGALURU-560037 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. R G KOLLE, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU-560001 2. THE SECRETARY TO GOVT DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE & INDUSTRIES, VIKAS SOUDHA, BENGALURU-560001 3. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER & CHAIRMAN THE KARNATAKA STONE CRUSHER LICENSING AND REGULATION AUTHORITY, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT-560001 Digitally signed by REKHA R Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37285 WP No. 41150 of 2019 4. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR AND MEMBER SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF MINES AND GEOLOGY, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT-560001 5. THE CHAIRMAN KARNATAKA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD, 7TH D CROSS, THIMMAIAH ROAD, SHIVA NAGAR, BENGALURU-560010 6. THE DEPUTY ENVIRONMENTAL OFFICER HOSKOTE REGIONAL OFFICE, HOSKOTE-560010 …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT.N.ANITHA GIRISH, HCGP FOR R1-4; SRI.GURURAJ JOSHI, ADVOCATE FOR R5 & 6) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH OR SET ASIDE PRIVATE COMPLAINT DATED 12.09.2013 FILED BY R-6 DEPUTY ENVIRONMENT OFFICER AT C.C.NO.687/2015 (PCR NO.196/2013) BEFORE THE LEARNED PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, HOSKOTE, PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-A FOR ALLEGED VIOLATIONS U/S 21, 22 AND 37 OF THE AIR (PREVENTION AND CONTROL OF POLLUTION) ACT 1981, IN RESPECT OF PETITONERS STONE CRUSHER UNIT - M/S BHARATH STONE CRUSHER (FORMERLY KNOWN AS SHASHANK STONES) IN PRIVATE PATTA LAND AT SY.NO.31/P16, OVER AN AREA OF 02.28 ACRES OF GUGATTAHALLI VILLAGE IN HOSKOTE TALUKA. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR DICTATING ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE J.M.KHAZI - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37285 WP No. 41150 of 2019 ORAL ORDER Petitioner who is the sole accused has filed this writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India r/w Section 482 Cr.P.C, with a prayer to quash the criminal proceedings initiated against him in C.C.No.687/2015 (arising out of PCR.No.196/2013) on the file of Civil Judge and JMFC, Hoskote, for the offences punishable under Sections 21, 22 and 37 of the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act 1981 ('Air act' for short) in respect of petitioner's stone crusher unit M/s Bharat Stone Crushers (formerly known as Shashank stones). 2. For the sake of convenience the parties are referred to by their rank before the trial Court. 3. Respondent No.6/complainant filed a private complaint alleging that it is a statutory body constituted under Section 4 of the Air Act Board is empowered to - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37285 WP No. 41150 of 2019 perform the powers and functions assigned to it under the said act, such as to control and regulate the emission of air pollutants into the atmosphere in the air pollution control area declared by the Karnataka state. The entire Karnataka State is declared as air pollution control area, as per Notification dated 30.05.1988. 3.1 Accused is carrying on the stone, crushing activities in the name and style of M/s Bharat construction company at survey number 31, Guttahalli village, Jagnahalli Hobli, within the jurisdiction of the trial Court. Accused was issued with the consent for operation for discharge of emission under the Air Act vide order dated 18.02.2012 valid from 01.07.2009 to 06.03.2012. Again, the consent was extended from 06.03.2012 to 30.06.2012 vide order dated 30.06.2012. 3.2. While operating the industrial plant, it was stipulated among other conditions that the accused shall - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37285 WP No. 41150 of 2019 have to install the Chimney at out let to the Jaw crusher, vibratory screen, belt conveyors system and that the discharge of emission from the premises of accused shall pass through the stack/Chimney/outlet and that the officers of the Board shall be free to collect the samples at any time as per the Air Act and Rules made there under and the accused shall provide air pollution control measures as indicated in Annexures-A and B, so that the discharge of emission shall not exceed the standard prescribed. It was also stipulated as a condition that 120 days before the expiry of the said consent, accused shall apply and obtain consent for further period. 3.3. In view of the orders passed by the Hon'ble supreme Court in Crl.A.No.7041-43/2001 dated 08.04.2009, order of this Hon'ble Court in W.P.No.6611/2011 dated 18.02.2011 and W.P.No.15576- 77/2010 dated 21.02.2011, the complainant/ Board issued closure order in exercise of powers under Section 31A of - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37285 WP No. 41150 of 2019 Air Act r/w Rules 20A of Air Rules 1993, directing accused to close down the operations and BECSOM officials were directed to stop power supply through communication dated 29.08.2012. 3.4 Accused was required to obtain consent for operation for further period after 30.06.2012 and also required to comply with above conditions. Despite the closure order, accused has continued to operate the plant in violation of the provision of the Air Act and thereby committed the offences punishable under Section 37 of Air Act. This violation was noticed by Shri Bhaskar H G, AEO, Regional Officer, Hoskote, during inspection on 17.12.2012. He has drawn mahazar and submitted report. He has also noted that despite closure order BECSOM has not stopped power supply. 3.5 By virtue of Section 15 of the Air Act, Board has delegated power authorizing the complainant to file the - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37285 WP No. 41150 of 2019 complainant vide Board meeting dated 13.02.2007 and hence, the complaint. 4. Petitioner is seeking quashing of the criminal proceedings, contending that the amending Act 64 of 2013 was enacted effective from 26.12.2013. Till such time, restraint orders passed by this Hon'ble Court against respondent No.5/Board were in force, for not having carried out Joint Inspection and notifying safer zone and issue form B1, CFE and CFO and licence in Form - C, despite pendency of application in Form-I. Neither safer zone was notified nor application was disposed of and/or rejected as per law, which is statutory mandate. Nothing prevented the petitioner to continue with stone crushing units, which was existed on the dated of commencement Act 8 of 2012. Moreover, in view of the restraint order passed this Hon'ble Court which were valid till 30.06.2013, stone crushing unit cannot be prevented from operating as per law. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37285 WP No. 41150 of 2019 4.1. The licensing authority was duty bound to carry out joint inspection within a period of 3 months and dispose of the application in an outer limit of 6 months. Thereafter, six months time limit was available for relocation to newly notified safer zone. Otherwise, the application filed by the petitioner should be either rejected or issued with Form-D, which has not been done, which is a serious laps amounting to abuse of process of law. The restrained order dated 30.06.2013 came to be extended up till 26.12.2013, on which day amending act 64 of 2013 was introduced. 4.2. Under the circumstance, neither the petitioner nor any other stone crushing unit could have been criminally prosecuted for alleged violation, if any, as the same is without authority of law and/or any source of power and the entire proceedings is vitiated. Ex-facie it is a nullity, ab- initio void and bad in law. As a matter of fact respondent No.6 is to be restrained from filing private complaint on - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37285 WP No. 41150 of 2019 12.09.2013, specially when restrained order was in force. Viewed from any angle the complaint is not sustainable and hence the petition. 5. Heard arguments and perused the record. 6. During the course of arguments learned counsel for petitioner submitted that before filing the complaint, the prior approval of the chairman of the board is not secured and as such complainant is not maintainable. In the complaint, only para Nos.1 to 7 are verified. Intentionally, complainant has not verified the contains of the para Nos.8 and 9 and this fact is not appreciated by the learned Magistrate before taking cognizance. No reasons are assigned for taking cognizance. 7. On the other hand learned counsel for the pollution control board would submit that reference to prior approval of the chairman is only an administrative approval. The delegation is complete with the resolution which has been passed authorizing the Deputy Environmental Officer (DEO) and Assistant Environmental Officer (AEO) of the - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37285 WP No. 41150 of 2019 regional office to file complaints. The approval of the chairman only being administrative, the same would not have impact on the delegations. 8. The Section 15 of Air Act deals with delegation of power by the State board by general or special order to the Chairman or member secretary or any other officer of the board such of it powers and functions under the Act. 9. Section 43 of the Air Act deals with cognizance of the offences. it reads as follows; 43. Cognizance of offences.—(1) No court shall take cognizance of any offence under this Act except on a complaint made by— (a) a Board or any officer authorised in this behalf by it; or (b) any person who has given notice of not less than sixty days, in the manner prescribed, of the alleged offence and of his intention to make a complaint to the Board or officer authorised as aforesaid, and no court inferior to that of a Metropolitan Magistrate or a - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37285 WP No. 41150 of 2019 Judicial Magistrate of the first class shall try any offence punishable under this Act. (2) Where a complaint has been made under clause (b) of sub-section (1), the Board shall, on demand by such person, make available the relevant reports in its possession to that person: Provided that the Board may refuse to make any such report available to such person if the same is, in its opinion, against the public interest. 10. Thus as per Section 15 Board may by general or special order delegate its powers in favour of the chairman or board or any other officer of the board. Therefore, it is necessary for the complainant who is working as Deputy environmental officer to show that they are authorized to file the complaint. 11. As evident from memo dated 11.01.2013, administrative approval to file criminal cases under Section 37 r/w Sections 39 and 40 of Air Act for violation of Sections - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37285 WP No. 41150 of 2019 21 and 31A of the Air Act 1981 is issued in favour of Deputy Environmental Officer (DEO) and Assistant Environmental Officer (AEO) of the regional office as per board resolution vide office memorandum No.KSPCB/14/LEG-07/4010 dated 24.03.2007, on behalf of the board for the violation of the Water (Prevention And Control of Pollution)Act 1974 and Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) 1981, after obtaining necessary approval of the chairman, KSPCB. 12. The combined reading of resolution along with Section 16 of the Air Act indicates that though there is delegation made to DEO and AEO to file complaints, there is raider that before filing the complaints approval of the chairman is to be secured. This condition and limitation is also envisaged in Section 15 of the Air Act. 13. The official memorandum dated 23.04.2007 issued by the member secretary also required that the DEOs and AEOs are authorized to file complainants for violation under the Water Act and Air Act after getting approval from the chairman. - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37285 WP No. 41150 of 2019 14. This also makes it evident that before filing the complainant approval from the chairman is necessary. Admittedly the complaint has not secured the approval from the chairman. In the light of specific bar contained Section 43 of the Air Act, the Courts are prohibited from taking cognizance of any offence, expect on a complaint filed by the board or any officer authorized in this behalf. Even though the DEOs and AEOs are authorized, they are required to obtained approval from chairman before filing the complaint. 15. In the light of the above discussion, petition is deserves to be allowed and criminal proceedings initiated against the petitioners are liable to quashed. However, the board is liberty to initiate fresh proceedings by following applicable law and accordingly the following: ORDER (i) Writ petition filed by the accused under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution of India r/w Section 482 Cr.P.C is hereby allowed. - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37285 WP No. 41150 of 2019 (ii) The criminal proceedings in C.C.No.687/2015 (arising out of PCR.No.196/2013) on the file of Civil Judge and JMFC, Hoskote, for the offences punishable under Sections 21, 22 and 37 of the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act 1981, in respect of petitioners stone crusher unit M/s Bharat Stone Crushers (formerly known as Shashank stones) is hereby quashed. (iii) However, liberty is reserved to the Board to initiate fresh proceedings by following applicable law. (iv) The Registry is directed to send back the trial Court records along with copy of this order to the trial Court. Sd/- (J.M.KHAZI) JUDGE RR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 35