Based on the companyplaint lodged by the Board, learned Magistrate of the trial Court directed issuance of process against the petitioners.
The allegation against the appellants was, that they had illegally established iron ore stack yard s at various places in Uttara Kannada District.
It was alleged, that the appellants had number made provisions for pollution companytrol measures, despite repeated requests and instructions given to them, by the officials of the Karnata State Pollution Control Board hereinafter referred to as the Board .
The proceedings against the appellants were sought to be challenged by petitions filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, wherein the appellants prayed for quashing of the above proceedings.
The above order dated 7.1.2009, is subject to challenge in these appeals.
It was therefore, that CC No.546/2006, CC No.547/2006, CC No.548/2006 and CC No.549/2006 were filed before the Judicial Magistrate, First Class II, Karwar.
A number of similar criminal petitions, filed by the appellants and others, were sought to be disposed of by the High Court of Karnataka, Circuit Bench at Dharwad hereinafter referred to as the High Court , by a companymon order dated 7.1.2009.
Based thereon, the challenge raised by the appellants before this Court, was also sought to be rejected.
A perusal of the impugned order reveals, that the High Court did number examine the merits of the companytroversy.
The factual position indicated hereinabove is apparent from paragraphs 3 to 5 of the impugned order, which are being extracted hereunder The allegations against the respective petitioner is that, while being engaged in the business of stocking iron ore, the petitioners have violated the numberms prescribed by the Deputy Commissioner and thus offence un s 22 of the Pollution Control Act, has been companymitted and the further allegation in the companyplaint is that the petitioners have illegally established and operating iron ore stack yard at various places in Uttara Kannada District without the previous companysent of the Karnataka State Pollution Control Board for short, the Board and that the accused petitioners have number provided any pollution companytrol measures despite repeated requests and instruction given to them by the officials of the Board.
JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR, J. The appellants, while being engaged in the business of stocking iron ore, had allegedly violated certain numberms prescribed by the Deputy Commissioner under Section 22 of the Air Prevention and Control of Pollution Act, 1981 hereinafter referred to as the Air Act .
