IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2019 PRESENT THE HON’BLE MR. L. NARAYANA SWAMY ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE P.S. DINESH KUMAR WRIT PETITION NOs.8042-8043 OF 2019 (GM - POLICE) BETWEEN :
1. M/S. SANSERA ENGINEERING LIMITED, (EARLIER M/S. GEAROCK FORGE PVT. LTD.), PLOT NO.143-B 8, BOMMASANDRA INDUSTRIAL AREA, HOSUR ROAD, ATTIBELE HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK, BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT – 560 099. REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR, MR.SEKHAR VASAN.
2. SEKHAR VASAN, S/O LATE S.S.VASAN, AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.51, RANGA RAO ROAD, BASAVANAGUDI, BENGALURU – 560 004.
... PETITIONERS (BY SRI S.S.NAGANAND, SR. COUNSEL FOR SRI VIKRAM, 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 DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, BANGALORE URBAN, BENGALURU – 560 030.
3. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, BESCOM, K.R.CIRCLE, BENGALURU – 560 001.
4. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER/ ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, BESCOM, CHANDAPURA DIVISION, ANEKAL, BENGALURU RURAL – 562 106.
5. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, BWSSB, CAUVERY BHAVAN, K.G.ROAD, BENGALURU – 560 009.
... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI T.L.KIRAN KUMAR, AGA FOR R2; SRI D.NAGARAJ, ADVOCATE FOR R1) THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH ORDER DATED 11.02.2019 ISSUED BY R-1 (ANNEXURE – A) AND ETC., THESE PETITIONS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER In these writ petitions, petitioners are seeking to quash order dated 11.02.2019 issued by the first respondent (Annexure-‘A’).
2. It is the case of the petitioners that by the impugned order, the first respondent in exercise of the powers conferred under Section 31(A) of the Air (Prevention and Control Pollution) Act, 1981, read with Rule 20(A) of Karnataka Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Rules, 1983, directed the first petitioner-Company to close the operation of the Company forthwith until further orders. Further, the BESCOM have been directed to cut off electricity and water supply respectively and also a further direction was issued to second respondent to seize the first petitioner – Company forthwith. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioners have filed these petitions.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that in compliance with the directions issued by the first respondent pursuant to communication dated 13.07.2018, the first petitioner – Company addressed a letter dated 23.01.2019 stating that the action has been taken with regard to noise and vibration issues. It is further stated that as per the order of the Pollution Control Board, necessary steps have been taken by shifting two press machines to a new location and that the Regional Officer of the first respondent had visited the plant on 30.10.2018 and had witnessed the same. Therefore, it is submitted that inspite of complying with the order by shifting two press machines to the new location, closure order dated 11.02.2019 issued by the first respondent is wholly arbitrary and in violation of the principles of natural justice. Hence, petitioners seek for quashing of the same.
4. Sri.D.Nagaraj, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1 submitted that petitioners’ communication dated 23.01.2019 has been considered before passing the order at Annexure-‘A’. Hence, he submitted that the order at Annexure-‘A’ is just and proper and prays for dismissal of the writ petitions.
5. We have carefully considered rival contentions and perused the records.
6. It is the specific case of petitioners that they have taken remedial action to bring the noise pollution and vibration within the prescribed limits. However, there is no reference to petitioners’ communication in the impugned order. Therefore, in our opinion the closure order has been passed by the first respondent as per Annexure-‘A’ dated 11.02.2019, without application of mind. Hence, the said order dated 11.02.2019 passed by the first respondent is set aside. Further, the first respondent is directed to issue a fresh notice, give an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners and thereafter pass appropriate orders in accordance with law.
With these observations, the writ petitions are allowed.
Sd/-
ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE Sd/- JUDGE VMB