M/s. Dream Logistics Company vs Karnataka State Pollution Control Board. Criminal Petition 101728/2017 decided on 6 November 2020.
Judgment Link: http://judgmenthck.kar.nic.in/judgmentsdsp/bitstream/123456789/348072/1/CRLP101728-17-06-11-2020.pdf
Relevant paragraphs: 12. Point (v). Can a tenant or a licencee of the property contend that the liability of obtaining permission from the respective Pollution Control Board would be that of the owner and the tenant/licensee has nothing to do with it?
12.1 to 12.6 Neither the Air Act nor the Water Act makes any distinction between the owner and/or a tenant of a industry, factory or premises. The Act only refers to and applies itself to pollution being caused. Unless there is a contract to the contrary that an owner of the premises is to obtain permissions under the relevant pollution control Act, it would be for the alleged polluter to obtain necessary permissions and/or consent under the Air Act or Water Act. Section 21 of Act also does not make a distinction between the owner and/or a tenant insofar as it states “…. No person shall, without the previous consent of the State Board, establish or operate any industrial plant in an air pollution control area. ….”. Thus, the allegation in the present case being that the Petitioner has caused pollution and/or the Petitioner is operating the iron ore stackyard, it was for the Petitioner to obtain the necessary permission and/or consent from the jurisdictional Pollution Control Board.
12.7 From the reading of the above, it is seen that as per Condition No.8, the said Dream Logistics Company was required to obtain consent from KSPCB under Water Act and Air Act before the commencement of any activities as also to comply with several conditions as extracted above. Irrespective of whether the petitioner is an owner or a tenant or whether the land is owned by port authorities or otherwise, even at the time of allotment, it was made clear that it was for the petitioner to obtain consent from KSPCB. In the said background, it cannot now lie for the petitioner to contend that the consent was to be obtained by the port authorities. Be that as it may. This could also be a subject matter of trial. If at all, the port authorities are also liable, they can also be brought on record as additional accused in terms of Section 41 of the Air Act. Governmental authorities who violate Environmental Protection Act including the Air Act, Water Act could be liable for prosecution for such offences, the concerned persons who were incharge of such government department at that point of time can always be prosecuted.
12.8 1.1. In view of the above, I answer Point No.(v) by holding that a tenant or a licensee of a property or anyone who operates any industrial plant or trade activity in the air pollution control area would have to obtain the necessary consent and/or permission from the jurisdiction Pollution Control Board unless there is a contract to the contrary between such tenant and owner of the premises or a licensee and licensor of the premises, requiring the Owner or Licensor to obtain such consent and/or permission.
Compiled by S.Basavaraj, Advocate, Daksha Legal
Daksha Legal 