The Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench) has set aside a summoning order issued by a Special Judicial Magistrate against the top management of Larsen & Toubro Ltd (L&T) in a criminal complaint filed by the U.P. Pollution Control Board. The Court held that the Magistrate failed to apply his judicial mind by proceeding on the factually incorrect premise that the company was operating without prior consent, despite a valid consent order being on record.
The Single Judge Bench of Justice Brij Raj Singh allowed the application filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), challenging the summoning order dated February 19, 2022. The Court observed that the Special Judicial Magistrate had summoned the applicants—including the Chairman and Managing Director and Independent Directors of L&T—on the ground that they had not obtained prior approval from the Board. However, the record showed that a valid consent to operate had already been issued by the Board itself. Consequently, the High Court quashed the summoning order and remitted the matter back to the Magistrate for a fresh decision.
Background of the Case
The dispute arose from a construction project undertaken by L&T for the Dedicated Freight Corridor Corporation of India Limited (DFCCIL). L&T was awarded a contract for the design and construction of civil, structures, and track works for the Khurja-Pilkhani section of the Eastern Dedicated Freight Corridor. To execute the work, L&T established a concrete batching plant at Village Saidpur Husainpur, Ghaziabad.
The U.P. Pollution Control Board (UPPCB) claimed that its officials inspected the plant on December 14, 2020. The inspection report alleged that the industrial plant was established without obtaining previous consent, in violation of Section 21 of the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981. Further allegations included that dust particles were found uncovered and no water sprinklers were installed to settle dust during loading and unloading, constituting a violation of consent conditions punishable under Section 37 of the Air Act.
Based on these allegations, the UPPCB filed a complaint (Case No. 7217 of 2020), and the Learned Special Judicial Magistrate (Pollution/CBI), Lucknow, issued summons to the applicants on February 19, 2022.
Arguments of the Parties
Mr. Dileep Kumar, Senior Advocate appearing for the applicants, argued that the premise of the complaint and the subsequent summoning order was flawed. He submitted that L&T had obtained the requisite ‘Consent to Establish’ on December 1, 2018, and subsequently the ‘Consent to Operate’ under the Air Act on August 21, 2020, which was valid from August 1, 2020, to July 31, 2022.
Mr. Kumar contended that the Magistrate’s order reflected a lack of application of mind, as it relied on the assertion that the unit was operating “without obtaining previous consent,” which was directly contradicted by the Board’s own documents. The applicants also argued that the inspection report was never served upon them at the time of inspection.
Mr. S.S. Rajawat, counsel for the U.P. Pollution Control Board, opposed the application. He argued that the inspection revealed violations of the conditions of the consent, specifically the failure to cover dust particles and install water sprinklers. He submitted that under Section 21 of the Air Act, complying with consent conditions is mandatory, and the Magistrate had considered the inspection report while issuing the process. He relied on the Supreme Court judgment in Dy. Chief Controller of Imports and Exports v. Roshanlal Agarwal (2003) to argue that a detailed speaking order is not required at the stage of issuing process.
Court’s Analysis
The High Court examined the summoning order and the consent letter dated August 21, 2020. Justice Brij Raj Singh noted that the Magistrate, in the impugned order, had observed:
“From the perusal of the said papers, it is evident that the industry was operated by Opposite Parties No. 1 to 21 without obtaining previous consent of the Complainant Board. Therefore, prima facie violation of mandatory provisions of Section-21 of the Air Act is shown…”
The High Court found this observation to be factually incorrect. The Court stated:
“The aforesaid consideration indicates that the learned Magistrate has noted incorrect fact, wherein he has mentioned that without prior approval/consent the Unit is being run by the applicants. This fact is totally wrong after bare perusal of letter dated 21.08.2023 [sic: 21.08.2020].”
The Court emphasized that the formation of an opinion by the Magistrate must be based on due application of mind. Relying on the Supreme Court’s decision in Sunil Bharti Mittal v. Central Bureau of Investigation (AIR 2015 SC 923), the Court reiterated:
“The order is liable to be set aside if no reason is given therein while coming to the conclusion that there is prima facie case against accused… A fortiori, the order would be bad in law if the reason given turns out to be ex facie incorrect.”
The Bench concluded that the sole ground mentioned by the Magistrate—that the unit was running without prior consent—was not sustainable in light of the documents on record.
Decision
The High Court allowed the application and set aside the impugned summoning order dated February 19, 2022, passed in Criminal Complaint Case No. 7217 of 2020. The Court remitted the matter back to the concerned Magistrate with a direction to take a fresh decision expeditiously, after applying his judicial mind to the facts and documents on record.
Case Details:
- Case Title: Sudhindra V. Desai And 5 Others Vs U.P. Pollution Control Board Thru. Its Assistant Environmental Engineer Shri Ashutosh Pandey
- Case Number: APPLICATION U/S 482 No. 221 of 2026
- Judge: Justice Brij Raj Singh
- Counsel for Applicants: Sri Dileep Kumar (Senior Advocate), Sri Shivanshu Goswami, Sri Raghuvansh Misra, Sri Subhash Gulati, Sri Sudhanshu Kumar
- Counsel for Opposite Party: Sri S.S. Rajawat, Shri Ashok Kumar Verma
