' SALMAN J.---Through this petition, the petitioner has challenged Order dated 13-4-2010, whereby respondent No,1 declined to entertain the petitioner's application dated 26-3-2010 for clarifying his position that he was not a party to the Complaint No,2 of 2010 preferred by respondent No, 3 and therefore, he could have not been proceeded against by the respondent No,1 in such complaint.
2. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner per section 18 of the Environmental Protection Act 1997, it is the company against which the complaint was filed which is to be prosecuted and therefore, its chief executive (the petitioner) was not required to appear before the respondent No, 1 for trial and hence, the impugned order not accepting such position was not sustainable and the same was liable to be set aside.
3. Learned counsel appearing for he respondent No,3 argued that a bare perusal of the proviso to section 18 of the Environmental Protection Act 1997 clearly stipulates that in case of a complaint against the company, only the chief executive of that company shall be liable to be prosecuted and that by virtue of such proviso, it is the chief executive of the company i.e. The petitioner who was liable to be tried for the offehces alleged to have been committed by his company and reflected in the Complaint No,2 of 2010, pending adjudication before respondent No,1. It was prayed by the respondent that the petition was meritless and deserved no consideration.
4. The learned D.A.-G. And A.A.-G. Have supported learned counsel for respondent No,3.
5. However, after hearing learned counsel and learned D.A.G. And A.A.-G, at some length, the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the respondent No,3 agreed that the petition be disposed of in the terms that the petitioner would be exempted from appearing before the respondent No,1 in Complaint No,2 of 2010 preferred respondent No,3 till such time that the proper charge, if any, is framed and that immediately after framing of the charge by the respondent No,1 against the petitioner in Complaint No,2 of 2010, the petitioner would appear before the respondent No,1 for trial till conclusion thereof.
5-A. Therefore, in the above facts and circumstances of the case we dispose of this petition in the terms that the petitioner will remain exempted from appearing before the respondent No,1 till such time that the charge is framed in Complaint No,2 of 2010 against him (if any) whereafter the petitioner, under, law, would be bound to keep appearing before the respondent No,1 till the decision in the complaint is given.
6. This petition along with listed application is disposed of accordingly.