Board officers need prior Chairman approval to prosecute under the Water and Air Acts.

The Karnataka State Pollution Control Board’s Assistant Environmental Officer filed a private complaint against the petitioners, a proprietary concern and its proprietor, alleging offences under Section 44 of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 and Section 37 of the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981.

The Magistrate took cognizance, and the petitioners sought to quash the proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

The petitioners argued that the complainant had not obtained the Chairman’s prior approval required by the Board’s delegation arrangements.

The respondent’s counsel acknowledged that no such approval had been obtained.

1. Whether the complaint could be maintained, and cognizance taken, when the Board’s authorised officer had not obtained the Chairman’s prior approval required by the Board’s delegation arrangements.

2. Whether the Magistrate’s cognizance order was sustainable in the circumstances.

Section 15 of the Air Act permits a State Board to delegate its powers, subject to specified conditions and limitations; Section 43 of the Air Act and Section 49 of the Water Act govern the persons by whose complaints a court may take cognizance of offences.

The Board’s resolution dated 13 February 2007 and Office Memorandum dated 24 March 2007 authorised Deputy and Assistant Environmental Officers to file cases on the Board’s behalf only after obtaining the Chairman’s approval.

The Court relied on the coordinate Bench decision in Crl.P. No. 8067/2019, dated 2 September 2022, which treated that approval as a condition or limitation on the delegated authority and therefore a prerequisite to initiating proceedings.

The complainant was an Assistant Environmental Officer acting under authority delegated by the Board.

That authority was conditional: the Board’s resolution and memorandum required the Chairman’s prior approval before a case could be filed.

The approval had not been obtained, and the respondent conceded that point.

Applying the coordinate Bench’s interpretation of the delegation, the Court held that the officer could not initiate the complaint without satisfying that condition.

It also found that the Magistrate had taken cognizance mechanically, without applying his mind to the defect.

It reserved liberty to the respondent to initiate proceedings in accordance with law after obtaining the Chairman’s approval.