In a significant relief for the top brass of engineering major Larsen & Toubro (L&T), the Allahabad High Court has quashed a summoning order issued against the company’s Chairman, Managing Director, and several other top-level directors. The case pertained to alleged violations of the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981.

The Lucknow Bench of the High Court, presided over by Justice Brij Raj Singh, observed that the Special Judicial Magistrate had failed to apply his judicial mind to the documents on record. Specifically, the Court noted that the Magistrate issued the summons based on the "incorrect fact" that the company was operating without consent, whereas valid permissions were actually in place at the time of the alleged violation.

The case has its roots in a major infrastructure project. In 2018, L&T was awarded a contract by the Dedicated Freight Corridor Corporation of India Limited (DFCCIL) for construction works on the Khurja – Pilkhani section of the Eastern Dedicated Freight Corridor. To support the project, L&T set up a temporary concrete batching plant in Ghaziabad.

According to the U.P. Pollution Control Board (UPPCB), an inspection was conducted at the plant on December 14, 2020. The Board alleged that:

The unit was being run without prior consent.
Building materials like dust particles were left uncovered.
No water sprinklers were installed to suppress dust during loading and unloading.

Based on these allegations, a complaint was filed under Section 37 of the Air Act, leading the Special Judicial Magistrate (Pollution/CBI) at Lucknow to issue summons in February 2022.

The summons targeted the topmost leadership of L&T, who approached the High Court seeking the quashing of the proceedings. The applicants included:

The Chairman & Managing Director (S.N. Subrahmanyan).
Whole-time Director & Chief Financial Officer (R. Shankar Raman).
Whole-time Directors & Senior Executive Vice Presidents.
Independent Directors of the company.

Senior Advocate Dileep Kumar, representing the L&T directors, argued that the summoning order was a result of a mechanical approach by the trial court. He produced documents showing that L&T had obtained 'Consent to Establish' in 2018 and 'Consent to Operate' in August 2020—valid until July 2022. Since the inspection occurred in December 2020, the allegation of "operating without consent" was demonstrably false.

The defense also pointed out that the directors—some of whom are Independent Directors—cannot be held vicariously liable for every site-level allegation without specific evidence of their direct involvement. They further contended that the batching plant had already been dismantled in 2022 and the project was completed in 2024.

On the other hand, the UPPCB's counsel maintained that while consent might have existed, the conditions of that consent (like using sprinklers and covers) were violated, which is also punishable under Section 37 of the Air Act.

Upon perusing the records, Justice Brij Raj Singh found a glaring discrepancy in the Magistrate’s order. The Magistrate had justified the summons by stating that the unit was being run "without prior approval/consent."

The High Court held:

"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 [Consent Letter]."

The Court emphasized that while a Magistrate isn't required to write an exhaustive judgment at the summoning stage, they must form a prima facie opinion based on a "due application of mind." Relying on the landmark Supreme Court judgment in Sunil Bharti Mittal v. CBI, the Court noted that an order is bad in law if the reasons provided are "ex-facie incorrect."

The High Court allowed the application and set aside the summoning order dated February 19, 2022. However, the Court has remitted the matter back to the Special Judicial Magistrate for a fresh decision. The Magistrate is now required to re-examine the materials and pass a fresh order after "due application of mind," specifically considering the valid consents that were in place.

Case Details:

Case Title: Sudhindra V. Desai And 5 Others v. U.P. Pollution Control Board
Case Citation: 2026:AHC-LKO:3343
Bench: Hon’ble Justice Brij Raj Singh
Counsel for Applicants: Senior Adv. Dileep Kumar, assisted by Adv. Raghuvansh Misra, Subhash Gulati, Sudhanshu Kumar, and Shivanshu Goswami.
Counsel for UPPCB: Adv. S.S. Rajawat and Ashok Kumar Verma.