IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2019 PRESENT THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE L.NARAYANA SWAMY AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK G NIJAGANNAVAR W.P.No.335/2019 (GM - POL) Between:
M/s Innovative Studio Pvt. Ltd No.135 Outer Ring Road Varthur Hobli, Marathahalli Bengaluru-560 037 Represented by its Director Smt.Radhika Achuthan Aged 54 years w/o K V Achuthan. . Petitioner (By Sri D Prabhakar, Advocate) And :
1. Karnataka State Pollution Control Board, Parisara Bhavana 1st to 5th Floor, #49, Church Street, Bengaluru-560 001 Represented by its Member Secretary.
2. The Regional officer Karnataka State Pollution Control Board, Ramanagar – 562 108.
3. The Senior Environmental Officer (Bangalore South) Karnataka State Pollution Control Board, Nisarga Bhavan 3rd Floor, Thimmaiah Road 7th D Main, Shivanagar Bangalore-560 010. ..Respondents (By Sri Gururaj Joshi, Advocate) This WP is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to quash the order dated 19.12.2018 passed by the R1 vide Annexure-A.
This WP coming on for orders this day, NARAYANA SWAMY J, passed the following:
ORDER The closure order dated 19.12.2018 vide Annexure-A passed by the 1st respondent is called in question.
2. The ground taken by the petitioner is that the impugned order has been passed by the 1st respondent without giving an opportunity to the petitioner. Hence, this writ petition.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is closure order passed by the respondents.
But the petitioner’s applications for renewal of the consent for operation of the film city under Section 21 of the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 and renewal of consent for operation of the film city under Section 25 of the Water Act should have been considered by the respondents.
4. At this stage, learned counsel for the respondents – Authorities submits that there is no scope for renewal of the consent and the same might have been considered prior to expiry of consent. In case an application is made under the provisions of the Act, the same should been considered afresh. Learned counsel submits that petitioner would have an opportunity to file an application under Section 33(B) of the Water Act. But this opportunity has not been availed by the petitioner. Hence, on this ground, petition is to be rejected.
5. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for both the parties.
6. The closure order has been passed during the currency of the consent. But the petitioner has neither made any application for rectification nor renewal of the consent. In the meanwhile, the closure order becomes confirmed since the petitioner has obtained the approval to run the film city in the year 2008. The submission of the petitioner is that the petitioner had made fresh petition under Section 25 of the Water Act. If such an application is made, the competent Authority is directed to consider and pass an appropriate order.
The respondent – Authorities are directed to consider the applications vide Annexures-G and H afresh and pass appropriate order. The petitioner shall comply with the mandatory requirements under the provisions of the Water Act.
The applications made by the petitioner shall be considered within a period of three months from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
Accordingly, the petition is disposed of.
Sd/- JUDGE Sd/- JUDGE Bkm.