IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 29TH 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.40441 OF 2017 (GM-POL) BETWEEN:
SPLENDID ROYAL APARTMENT OWNERS ASSOCIATION, HAVING ITS ADDRESS AT: SPLENDID ROYAL APARTMENT, SIR M. VISVESWARAYA ROAD, 3RD MAIN, HOSAPALYA, ITI LAYOUT, BANGALORE-560 068.
REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT, MR. MADIAH K.M., (BY SRI. SHIVAKUMAR S., ADVOCATE) AND:
1. KARNATAKA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD (KSPCB), REP. BY ITS MEMBER SECRETARY, “PARISARA BHAVAN”, #49, 4TH & 5TH FLOOR, CHURCH STREET, BANGALORE-560 001.
2. BANGALORE WATER SUPPLY & SEWAGE BOARD (BWSSB), ... PETITIONER REP. BY ITS CHAIRMAN, “CAUVERY BHAVAN”, 1ST FLOOR, K.G. ROAD, BENGALURU-560 009.
3. CENTRAL POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD (CPCB), HAVING ITS ZONAL OFFICE AT, 1ST & 2ND FLOORS, NISARGA BHAVAN, A-BLOCK, THIMMAIAH MAIN ROAD, 7TH D CROSS, SHIVANAGAR, BENGALURU-560 079.
REPRESENTED BY SCIENTIST ‘E’, ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. GURURAJ JOSHI, ADVOCATE FOR R1;
SRI. K.B. MONESH KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R2; SRI. L. MAHESH, ADVOCATE FOR PANCHAJANYA ASSTS. FOR R3) ---
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO DIRECT THE FIRST RESPONDENT TO COMPLETELY WITHDRAW THE NOTICE DATED 27TH JUNE 2017 BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER VIDE ANNEXURE ‘B’ FOR NOT INSTALLING STP IN THEIR RESPECTIVE APARTMENT ETC., THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY,
CHIEF JUSTICE MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, the learned counsel appearing for the first respondent and the learned counsel appearing for the second respondent.
2. The challenge in this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is to the notice dated 27th June 2017 by which the petitioner was directed to set up its own STP. The notice dated 27th June 2017 is based on the direction of the National Green Tribunal under the Order dated 18th May 2017. The order dated 18th May 2017 has been quoted in the impugned notice which reads thus :
“The Joint inspection team particularly of BWSSB & SPCB shall jointly inspect all the Sewage Treatment Plants (STPs) that have been installed by the Housing societies and Residential complexes and their analysis report be submitted before the Tribunal. The STPs which are not operating, they shall give a time bound programme to bring the parameters within the prescribed limit, failing which the electricity and water supply should be disconnected to such complexes. However, reasonable time should be granted to them to comply with the prescribed parameters”
“All the complexes which are in the catchment area of Bellandur Lake and other lakes should be directed to put up their own STPs which are capable of satisfying the prescribed parameters and do not discharge untreated sewage and waste into the lake. For this purpose notices shall be issued forthwith and if such complexes commence the work of establishing of STP, they should be granted further time to ensure that they do not pollute by discharging of their sewage domestic waste into any of the Lakes”
3. Thus, there is a specific direction of the National Green Tribunal, in original application Nos.217 /2017 and 125/2017 to which the State of Karnataka is a party that all the complexes which are in the catchment area of Bellandur Lake and other lakes should put up their own STPs which are capable of satisfying the prescribed parameters. In the grounds taken in the writ petition, it is not the case made out by the petitioners that the petitioner’s complex is not in the catchment area of the lake.
4. The submission of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is that the direction issued by the first respondent is contrary to the existing rules. He submitted that the law does not require the petitioner to set up its own STP.
5. We have considered the submission. On plain reading of notice dated 27th June 2017, the first respondent has issued the impugned notice for implementation of the clear direction issued by the NGT on 18th May 2017. As stated earlier, it is not the case made out by the petitioner that the complex is not in the catchment area of lakes.
6. Therefore, the remedy of the petitioner is to either challenge the order dated 18th May 2017 passed by the NGT or to apply for modification of the direction issued by the Tribunal. So long as the said order stands, no fault can be found with the impugned notice which is based on the said order of NGT.
7. Accordingly, the petition is disposed of by granting liberty to the petitioner to either challenge the order dated 18th May 2017 passed by the NGT or to apply for modification of the said order.
Sd/- CHIEF JUSTICE Sd/- JUDGE Snc