IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2019 PRESENT THE HON’BLE MR.ABHAY S. OKA, CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ WRIT PETITION NO.13105 OF 2018 (GM-RES-PIL) BETWEEN:
MS.KAVITA JAIN D/O.SURENDRA PAL JAIN AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS NO.11/1A 22/1BP KPJ NILAYAM 3RD CROSS, M.P.LAYOUT BOMMANAHALLI BENGLAURU-560 068 ... PETITIONER (BY SHRI HARSHA PANDYA FOR SHRI GOUTAM S.BHARADWAJ, ADVOCATES) AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF ANIMAL HUSBANDRY & VETERINARY SERVICES M.S.BUILDING BANGALORE-560 001 2. THE COMMISSIONER BELAGAVI CITY CORPORATION CTS NO.4821/27 A.R.S. NO.1005, VENKATESHWARAYA CIRCLE ROAD, SUBHAS NAGAR BELAGAVI-590 016 3. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER NEAR RANI CHENNAMMA CIRCLE COURT COMPOUND BELGAVI-590 002 4. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR DIRECTORATE OF INDUSTRIES & COMMERCE DISTRICT INDUSTRIES CENTRE UDYAMBAGH BELGAVI-590 008 5. ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF FACTORIES DIRECTORATE OF FACTORIES BOILERS, INDUSTRIAL SAFETY & HEALTH, BASAVANAGAR ROAD KALLEHOL CAMP BELGAVI-590 019 6. SENIOR ENVIRONMENTAL OFFICER KARNATAKA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD DIVISIONAL OFFICE/ZONAL OFFICE PLOT #4, LAKAMANAHALLI P.B.ROAD, KIADB INDUSTRIAL AREA DHARWAD-580 004 7. DESIGNATED FOOD SAFETY OFFICER FOOD SAFETY AND STANDARDS AUTHORITY OF INDIA VACCINE INSTITUTE, TILAKWADI BELGAUM DISTRICT-590 006 8. THE DIRECTOR (APEDA) AGRICULTURAL & PROCESSED FOOD PRODUCTS EXPORT DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY 3RD FLOOR, NCUI BUILDING 3 SIRI INSTITUTIONAL AREA AUGUST KRANTI MARG (OPP. ASIAD VILLAGE) NEW DELHI-110 016 9. THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE OLD PB ROAD, SUBHASH NAGAR BELGAVI-590 002 10. THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER MALAMARUTI POLICE STATION BELGAVI-590 016 11. THE DEVELOPMENT OFFICER THE KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREAS DEVELOPMENT BOARD PLOT # 7/B-3, B.K.KANGRALI INDUSTRIAL AREA, P.B.ROAD BELGAVI-590 010 12. ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (ELC.) O & M SUB DIVISION, NO.3, HESCOM NEHRU NAGAR BELAGAVI-590 010 13. THE PROPRIETOR FIZA EXPORTS PLOT #1301, KIADB KANABARGI INDUSTRIAL AREA BELAGAVI-590 016 14. THE PROPRIETOR SB TRADERS, PLOT #1302 AUTONAGAR KANABARGI INDUSTRIAL AREA BELAGAVI-590 016 15. THE PROPRIETOR SHRUSHTI AGRO COLD STORAGE PLOT # SPL-Q1, KIADB KANABARGI INDUSTRIAL AREA BELGAVI-590 016 16. THE PROPRIETOR NILE AGRO FOODS PVT. LTD. PLOT #1299/A, RS #635, KIADB KANABARGI INDUSTRIAL AREA BELGAVI-590 016 ... RESPONDENTS (BY SHRI ACHAPPA, AGA FOR R1-R7, R9 & R10; SHRI H.JAYAKARA SHETTY, ADVOCATE FOR R8; SHRI SANTOSH P.PUJARI, ADVOCATE FOR R15) ---
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO DIRECT RESPONDENT NO.10 TO DESTROY THE SEIZED 554 TONS OF CATTLE MEAT AND TO DIRECT RESPONDENT NO.3 TO SHUT THE PREMISES OF RESPONDENT NOS.13 TO 16 WHICH IS OPERATING WITHOUT ANY LICENCES AND ETC.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, CHIEF JUSTICE MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER There are two substantive prayers in this petition filed in the nature of a public interest litigation. As far as the first prayer is concerned, the order dated 14th June 2019, for the reasons recorded therein, records that prayer clause (a) cannot be granted.
2. As far as the prayer clause (b) is concerned, the order of closure has been implemented as far as the respondent Nos.14 and 16 are concerned. There is a memo filed by the learned counsel appearing for respondent No.6 of today’s date to that effect. As regards the respondent No.15, the order of closure has been revoked. As regards respondent No.13, though the order of closure has been made, the same has been stayed by this Court in a writ petition in which the present petitioner has applied for intervention.
3. The submission of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is that this petition may be kept pending as far as the respondent No.13 is concerned as his apprehension that even if the stay is vacated, the order of closure will not be implemented.
It is obvious that if the stay granted in favour of respondent No.13 is vacated, the Karnataka State Pollution Control Board is bound to enforce the order of closure. Therefore, it is not necessary to keep the petition pending especially when the petitioner has applied for intervention in the petition filed by the respondent No.13. Accordingly, the petition is disposed of.
Sd/- CHIEF JUSTICE Sd/- JUDGE LB