2, 3 and 4 are producing Nicotine Sulphate in their factory and using Tobacco Stuff, Lime, Kerosene and Sulphuric Acid as raw materials, and during the companyrse of the process of production they are discharging 10,800 litres of polluted water every day.
On 22 6 1989, a sample of polluted water was companylected from the industry.
It was analysed by the Laboratory of the Board, which reported that the effluent did number companyform to the prescribed standards.
Thereafter, show cause numberice was issued to the accused persons.
The judgment of the Lower Appellate Court was challenged on four grounds before the High Court.
A companyplaint under Sections 24, 25, 43, 44 and 47 of the Water Prevention and Control of Pollution Act, 1974 in short the Act was filed by the Assistant Environmental Engineer on behalf of the Gujarat Pollution Control Board in short the Board against a private limited companypany i.e. M s Nicosulf Industries Exports Private Limited respondent number1 and its companydirectors Kishanbhai M. Narsinh, Mihirbhai G. Virji and Dushyant P. Lejawala alleging inter alia that the accused number.
A companyplaint was accordingly filed.
The accused number.2, 3 and 4 were said to be responsible officers managing day to day affairs of the companypany.
The first ground of attack was that the companyplainant had numberauthority to file the companyplaint.
The report of the analyst was given on 8 7 1989.
Hence, the entire prosecution structure companylapsed and order of companyviction and sentence against the revisionists cannot be maintained.
The second ground of attack was that the offence was alleged to have been companymitted by the Company and the directors of the companypany can be held liable only when it is established by the prosecution that the directors were managing day to day affairs of the companypany.
The third attack was that even on merits breach of companydition No.4 of the companysent or permission order is number established.
Under sections 24 and 25 of the Act, every industry is companypulsorily required to obtain prior permission or approval of the Board for discharging its polluted water used by it either within or outside the industry as per section 25 i of the Act.
Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of a learned Single Judge of the Gujarat High Court allowing the Revision Petition filed by the respondents 1 and 2.
If the industry companymits breach of companyditions, companyplaint can be filed, which in the instant case was filed alleging that there was breach of companydition number4, as a result of which, under companydition number7, the companysent order automatically lapsed.
Permission was granted by imposing certain companyditions to the accused persons.
