Pollution-control prosecutions require unit-specific administrative approval; general approval is insufficient.

The petitioners sought to quash proceedings in C.C. No. 6778/2020 before the XLI Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru, alleging offences under the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974, and the Air Acts identified in the complaint.

The petitioners submitted that, following an inspection and disconnection of electricity, they rectified the alleged violations and obtained permission to operate the unit.

They also contended that prosecution required administrative approval specific to their unit, whereas the approval relied on by the respondent was general.

The respondent produced administrative approval dated 5 October 2019 and maintained that it was sufficient to launch prosecution.

1. Whether prosecution could be initiated on the basis of general administrative approval rather than approval specific to the petitioners’ unit.

2. Whether the pending criminal proceedings should be quashed for want of such unit-specific approval.

The petition was brought under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, as described in the petition, and Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita.

The Court relied on the coordinate Bench decisions in M/s. Rayonnant Natural Care Excellence Pvt. Ltd. v. Karnataka State Pollution Control Board and Sri B.V. Byre Gowda v. State of Karnataka and Another, which it said required administrative approval specific to the relevant unit or industry before prosecution could be launched.

The proceedings alleged offences under Sections 24, 25, 26, 43 and 44 of the Water Act, 1974, and the specified provisions of the Air Acts.

The administrative approval produced by the respondent was general and did not relate specifically to the petitioners’ unit.

Applying the principle stated in the cited coordinate Bench decisions, the Court held that this approval did not satisfy the requirement for launching the prosecution against the petitioners.

It therefore resolved the matter on that procedural ground, without determining whether the alleged pollution violations had occurred.

It reserved liberty to the respondent to take such action as may be advised in law and clarified that its observations concerned the adequacy of the administrative approval, not the merits of the alleged violations.