M/S DELHI BOTTLING CO. PVT. LTD. V. CENTRAL BOARD

Blog Content

FACTS

M/s. Delhi Bottling Co. Pvt. Ltd. (for short ‘the Company’) carries on the business of preparation of soft drinks (Gold Spot, Limca, Thums Up, Rimzim and Soda Water, etc.) at their factory premises. They discharge trade effluents which ultimately fall in the stream, the river Yamuna. The Company had previously obtained a consent order under the provisions of Sections 25 and 26 of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974.

The Central Board for the Prevention and Control of Water Pollution filed a complaint under Section 33(1) of the Act, alleging two key failures:

1. The Company had neither put up the required treatment plant nor started any preliminary step to that effect.

2. A sample of the trade effluents, upon analysis, was found not conforming to the parameters set out in the Company's consent order.

The Board prayed that the Company be restrained from causing pollution until it set up the required treatment plant and conformed to the prescribed quality standards.

HISTORY

The Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi, after hearing the parties and obtaining the Company's reply, passed an order restraining the Company from causing pollution of the stream by discharging the trade effluents until the required treatment plant was set up and the effluents conformed to the standards prescribed by the Board.

Feeling aggrieved by this order, the Company filed this petition under Section 482, Cr.P.C. in the High Court.

ISSUES

1. Whether the impugned order passed by the Metropolitan Magistrate was correct?

2. Whether the sample was not required to be divided into two parts and analysed as per the provisions of sub-section (5) of Section 21 as no appearance was put in on behalf of the Company before the officials of the Board at the time of the taking of the sample by them?

JUDGEMENT

The Court focused heavily on the procedural requirements for taking and analysing effluent samples under the Water Act.

The Company alleged that the sample was not divided by the officials of the Board into two parts and no part thereof was given to the Company’s representative despite his request. Crucially, the Court noted:

• No affidavit was filed by either side before the learned Magistrate in support of their respective claims regarding the division/non-division of the sample.

• In such a situation, the Company's allegations (that the sample was not divided and a request for division was ignored) had to be taken as not controverted and thus admitted.

The Court, referring to the admitted pleading, held that a demand was made by the Company's representative to the officials of the Board to divide the sample into two parts and to get the same analysed in accordance with Section 21(5) of the Act, but that request was not acceded to.

Section 21(5) Compliance: The Court concluded that the officials of the Board were not justified in getting the sample analysed from a laboratory only recognised by the Board instead of complying with the requirements of sub-section (5) of Section 21 of the Act (which mandates giving a part of the sample to the person from whom it was taken for independent analysis).

That being so, the conclusion that the petitioners were discharging effluents in the stream which were likely to cause pollution is not sustainable as the evidence (the analysis report) was improperly obtained. Consequently, the impugned order passed by the Magistrate is bad and is liable to be set aside.