Vij (K.L) v. State Of Uttar Pradesh And Others

1. This is an application under S. 482, Criminal Procedure Code, to quash the proceedings pending against the applicant on the basis of a complaint under S. 92 of the Factories Act, 1948, filed by the Inspector of Factories, opposite party 3, in the Court of the C.J.M, Rampur.

2. It is alleged in the complaint that the applicant is the manager of Raza Textiles, Ltd., Rampur, and that the management did not make effective arrangements for the disposal of wastes and effluents coming of the factory when the factory was inspected on 10 February 1975, inspite of the fact that the arrangements made for the disposal of effluents were not found to be effective and were disapproved by the Effluent Board on 30 October 1974. The applicant thus committed a breach of S. 12 of the Factories Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), read with rule 18 of the Uttar Pradesh Factories Rules, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as the rules), which was punishable under S. 92 of the Act.

3. Raza Textiles, Ltd., were in existence when the rules cams into force. Rule 18 of the rules runs as follows:

4. Under sub-rule (7) of rule 18, the factory which was in existence on the date of the enforcement of the rules was required to submit to the board an application along with the detailed plans of arrangements proposed to be made, or in existence, along with the documents mentioned in Sub-rule (8). The complaint filed by opposite party 3 does not indicate that the applicant committed a violation of sub-rule (7) or sub-rule (8) of rule 18 of the rules. The complaint indicates that the plan of the arrangements for the disposal of wastes and effluents which was submitted by the factory was disapproved by the board on 30 October 1974, and even after the disapproval no effective arrangements were made for the disposal of wastes and effluents by opposite party 3.

5. A plain reading of Rule 18 of the rules indicates that all that is required from an existing factory is the submission of the plans of the arrangements proposal to be made or in existence for the disposal of wastes and effluents along with the documents mentioned in Sub-rule (8). Rule 18 does not mention what the existing factory is to do after the plans submitted are disapproved by the board. It is not stated in rule 18 either that the existing factory should stop functioning after the plans for the disposal of wastes and effluents are disapproved by the board or it should submit fresh plans for the discharge of wastes and effluents within a specified time. Rule 18 is thus completely silent regarding the consequences that are to follow as a result of the disapproval of the plans that are submitted with regard to the arrangements made for the discharge of wastes and effluents by a factory which was in existence when the rules came into force.

Section 12 of the Act runs as follows:

“12. Disposal of wastes and effluents.— (1) Effective arrangements shall be made for the disposal of wastes and effluents due to manufacturing process carried on therein.

(2) The State Government may make rules prescribing the arrangements to be made under Sub-sec. (1) or requiring that the arrangement made in accordance with Sub-sec. (1) shall be approved by such authority as may be prescribed.”

6. It is admitted by the opposite parties that the State Government has not made any rules prescribing the arrangements to be made under Sub-sec. (1) of S. 12 of the Act. Rules have only been made requiring that the arrangements made in accordance with Sub-sec. (1) shall be approved by such authority as may be prescribed. It is true that once the plans regarding the disposal of wastes and effluents submitted by a factory, which was in existence when the rules came into force, are disapproved the arrangements regarding the disposal of wastes and effluents are not effective but from this it cannot be inferred that the existing factory must stop working immediately after the plans for the disposal of wastes and effluents have been disapproved by the board as this is not contemplated by the rules. It is also not mentioned in the rules that fresh plans have to be submitted regarding the disposal of wastes and effluents by an existing factory within a specified time. Thus in the absence of any rule that the existing factory must stop functioning till fresh plans are approved by the board, even if the existing factory continues working after the original plans for the disposal of wastes and effluents have been disapproved by the board, it cannot be held that it has violated Sub-sec. (1) of S. 12 of the Act. It may be mentioned that in the present case, the order of the board, dated 30 October 1974, shows that the B.O.D of the sample of the effluents discharged from the factory of the applicant was 900 P.P.M which was high and resulted in the disapproval by the board of the plans of the arrangements made for the disposal of the effluents. The order of the board, however, does not indicate what should have been the B.O.D of the effluents. In these circumstances it was not possible for the applicant to submit a fresh and proper plan regarding the arrangements for the disposal of effluents from the factory. Thus even if the allegations contained in the complaint are accepted, the applicant has not committed any breach of either S. 12 of the Act or Rule 18 of the rules. He cannot, therefore, be held guilty under S. 92 of the Act.

7. This application is accordingly allowed and the proceedings against the applicant pending in the Court of the C.J.M, Rampur, on the basis of the complaint filed by the Inspector of Factories, U.P.I/C, Bareilly Region, Bareilly, under S. 92 of the Act are quashed.