Commissioner of Municipal Council can be prosecuted for violation under the Water Act, Supreme Court

The Supreme Court recently held that Commissioners and Chief Officers of City Municipal Council can be prosecuted under Section 48 of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 (Act)..A Division bench of Justices Ashok Bhushan and M R Shah were of the opinion that Karnataka High Court had erred in quashing the complaint filed by Karnataka State Pollution Control Board (KSPCB) against the respondent Commissioner of City Municipality. The High Court had quashed the proceedings holding that Chief Officer or Council cannot be termed as “Head of the Department” as enumerated under section 48 of the Act. Therefore, the accused officers cannot be prosecuted under the Act, the High Court had held..The State Pollution Board were aggrieved with this decision of the Court and hence, the appeal was filed..The reason for KSPCB to raise an issue and institute the petition was that the officials of the state Municipal council had failed to fulfil their promise to allow treated sewage water into the lakes. Other reasons included Under Ground Drainage facility and discharging the untreated sewage into the neighbouring water bodies. This essentially was a violation of Section 25 of the Act, 1974 and the is punishable under Section 44 of the Act, KSPCB contented..While deciding the case, the court predominantly looked into the question: whether City Municipal Council constituted under the Municipalities Act is a department of the government?.The Court responded to this question by stating that,.“The provisions of Act, 1974 as well as the Karnataka Municipalities Act, 1964 have to be looked into to find answer to the above question. The City Municipal Council is a Council, incorporated under Section 10 of the Karnataka Municipalities Act,1964”.After examining the scheme under which the Municipality was established and thoroughly perusing the acts mentioned therein, the Apex Court held that Municipalities are not a Department of the Government..“The Karnataka Municipalities Act, 1964 as noted above, provides for a Town and City Municipal Councils as a body corporate. The control of the State Government on the Municipality is provided in a separate chapter, i.e., Chapter XII. The Scheme of constitution of Municipal area and other provisions of Act, 1964 clearly indicate that Municipalities are not a Department of the Government.”.Notably, apart from this, the Court went on to look another pertinent issue, whether the Municipality Council is immune from prosecution under Act..The court noted that under sections 41 – 45 of the Act, which deals with punishment and penalty, begins with the phrase “whoever fails to comply….” Thus, the Court held that the Act provides for a conviction of any person, who contravenes the provisions of the Act..Further, the Court held that,.“The term “company” has been defined in Section 47 of Act, 1974 in a very wide and inclusive manner. Explanation states that “company” means “any body corporate”. Thus, all body corporates are included within the definition of company as per Section 47. There cannot be any dispute that City Municipal Council is a body corporate, which has been clearly provided under Section 10 of Act.”.The Court further relied on the Section 141 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 which provides for “offences by companies”. Though the section used the term “company”, the Court pointed out that the concept of corporate criminal liability as contained in Section 141 is attracted to a Corporation and as well as a Company..To establish the above, the court also relied on a judgment delivered by the Patna High Court in the case of Arun Kumar Singh vs. The State of Bihar and Ors. In this regard, the court held,.“The Explanation of Section 47 of Act, 1974 and the Explanation (a) to Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act are pari materia..We, thus, looking to the purpose and object of Act (Water Pollution Act), 1974, are of the opinion that Section 47 can be resorted to for offences by body corporate and Karnataka State Pollution Control Board by filing a complaint before the Magistrate for taking cognizance of offence under Section 49 did not commit an error.”.Though the State Municipal Council cannot be considered the department of the State Government, it could be regarded as Corporate bodies, the Court held..[Read Judgment here]

Commissioner of Municipal Council can be prosecuted for violation under the Water Act, Supreme Court

Related Stories