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.1025/2019 (GM - POL) Between:
Shrushti Agro & Cold Storage Plot No.SPL, Q-1, KSSIDC Kanbargi Industrial Area Auto Nagar, Belagavi-590016 Represented by its Partner Shri Amol s/o Vidyadhar Mohandas Age: 34 years, Occupation:Business R/o Plot No.1202, Sahyadri Nagar Belagavi-591108. .. Petitioner (By Sri Santosh P Pujari, Advocate) And :
1. The State of Karnataka Represented by its Chief Secretary, Vidhana Soudha Bengaluru-560001.
2. The Deputy Commissioner Belagavi, Court Compound Belagavi-590001.
3. The Senior Environmental Officer, Karnataka State Pollution Control Board Belagavi Division, Auto Nagar Belagavi-590015.
4. The Tahasildar Belagavi, Court Compound Belagavi-590001.
5. The Commissioner of Police Subhash Nagar, Belagavi-590016.
6. The Police Inspector Mal Maruti Police Station Belagavi-590016. ..Respondents (By Sri Vasanth V Fernandes, HCGP for R-1, 2, 4 to 6 Sri Gururaj Joshi, Advocate for R3) This WP is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, praying to quash the impugned order dated 8.12.2018 passed by the R3 vide Annexure- A and etc.
This WP coming on for orders this day, NARAYANA SWAMY J, passed the following:
ORDER Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that earlier the petitioner had approached the Dharwad Bench, which has got jurisdiction. The Registry has raised objection with regard to jurisdiction since it has come to Green Bench, it has to be posted before Bench head by the Hon’ble Chief Justice.
2. After having heard the matter, it is found that the matter is not related to Green Bench. Hence, the petitioner has been made to approach this Court only on exceptional circumstances. Therefore, the matter has been heard and disposed of.
3. The prayer made by the petitioner is for issuance of a writ of mandamus to the respondents to comply and abide by the observations made by the empowering committee in its meeting dated 11.12.2018 bearing No.PCB/10/CRC/2018-19/4623 vide Annexure-B passed by the Chairman of Karnataka State Pollution Control Board, Bangalore.
4. Petitioner is engaged in the cold storage business at Plot No.SPL, Q1, KSSIDC, Kanbargi Industrial Area Auto Nagar, Belagavi, and also in the business of trimming and packing of meat/beef, seasonal fruits etc. The same was directed to be closed as per order dated 28.5.2018 and consequently the premises has been seized by the competent authority. Thereafter, petitioner had approached the competent Authority by complying with the irregularities found by the competent Authority, which were observed in the closure order and considering the compliance, a resolution was passed dated 11.12.2018 and it was resolved that the Committee after detailed deliberation recommended to revoke the closure order. Though, this order was passed, the petitioner has not been permitted to run the plant. The petitioner had approached the Dharwad Bench by filing WP No.102915/2018. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that even though this Court permitted the petitioner to start the functioning of the factory as per provisions of law, the premises is not opened.
5. Learned counsel for the respondent – Board submits that against the closure order, the petitioner has to approach the Appellate Authority instead of approaching this Court. Learned counsel submits that this petition may be disposed of on the ground that the petitioner has to prefer writ petition before the Dharwad Bench since the premises of the petitioner is situated at Belagavi.
6. Learned Government Pleader supports the impugned order and submits that the matter may be disposed of reserving liberty to the petitioner to approach the Appellate Authority.
7. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for both the parties.
8. On perusal of the impugned order, the competent Authority found irregularities committed by the petitioner. Consequently, the premises of the petitioner has been closed by the competent Authority. The petitioner has complied the irregularities and reported to the Board. The Board after considering the same has passed a resolution to close the premises of the petitioner and made an observation to revoke the closure order. It is no doubt clear from the date of order, it stands revoked and the same should have been communicated. Further, the Committee of the Board resolved to break open the lock of the premises of the petitioner. No doubt, it is legally presumed that there are no grounds to the respondents to seize the premises. Hence, it is directed the respondents to remove the lock and handover premises to the petitioner at the earliest within a period of one week from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
9. Learned counsel for the Authorities is directed to communicate the order for the purpose of revoking the closure order and break open the lock of the premises of the petitioner and handover the same.
10. It is expected that the petitioner shall run the industry only for the purpose for which the petitioner obtained license as per law. At any point of time, if it is found that the petitioner uses the license for running industry contrary to law, it is always open for the competent Authority to take appropriate action.
With the above observations and direction, writ petition stands disposed of.
Sd/- JUDGE Sd/- JUDGE Bkm.