Court Can't Take Cognizance Of Offence Under Water Act Without Valid Authorization By Pollution Control Board: Rajasthan High Court
Rajasthan High Court has said that in absence of a valid authorization by the Pollution Control Board or a competent officer authorized by the Board, in favour of the complainant under Section 49 of Water Act, a criminal court cannot take cognizance of an offence under the Act.
As per Section 49 of the Act, no court shall take cognizance of any offence under the Act except on a complaint made by-a) Pollution Control Board or any officer authorised in this behalf by it; or
(b)any person who has given notice of not less than sixty days, in the manner prescribed, of the alleged offence and of his intention to make a complaint, to the Board or officer authorised as aforesaid. Further no court inferior to that of a Metropolitan Magistrate or a Judicial Magistrate of the first class shall try any offence punishable under this Act.
The High Court was hearing a petition by the complainant against revision court's order that had set aside cognizance taken by the Magistrate in a case filed under the Water Act, and had remanded back the matter to the Magistrate.
The bench of Justice Farjand Ali observed that, when the order taking cognizance has been set aside, it would be apt for the magistrate to reconsider its own order in light of the directions passed by the session judge (revision court).
The court further directed:
"A further direction may be given by this court to the effect that the competence and authorization of the complainant to file the criminal complaint shall be examined first before proceeding further in the matter. The application of Section 49, which is mandatory in nature shall also be taken care of.
The court said that as per the "prima facie material" placed before it, showed absence of any authorization by the Pollution Control Board or any officer authorized by the board in this behalf. The court thus said that the Magistrate shall consider whether any authorization letter was issued by the pollution control board or any other person in this behalf for the purpose of filing of the complaint before him prior to filing of the criminal complaint.
"Needless to say, in absence of a valid authorization in favour of the complainant, a criminal court is defunct to take cognizance of the offence under the provisions of the water prevention and pollution control act, 1957," the court said.
It thus directed:
“In view of the aforesaid discussion and the categorical mandate contained in Section 49 of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974, the learned Magistrate shall, before proceeding further in the matter, first record a specific finding regarding the competence and lawful authorization of the complainant to institute the complaint.”
The Court also observed in absence of a valid and legally sustainable authorization in favour of the complainant at the time of institution of the complainant, bar under Section 49 would come into operation. That would render the complaint non-maintainable and prevent the criminal court from taking cognizance of the offence.
Accordingly, the petition was disposed of.
Title: Pramod Jain v the Regional Officer, Rajasthan State Pollution Control Board & Anr.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 209