IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 09TH DAY OF APRIL 2019 PRESENT:
THE HON’BLE Mr. L.NARAYANA SWAMY ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE P.S.DINESH KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO.5596 OF 2019 (GM-MM-S) BETWEEN:
SRI K.M.KEMPARAJU S/O LATE MUDIAPPA AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS, R/AT MARAVANJI ROAD, KADUR TOWN KASABA HOBLI & TALUK CHICKMAGALUR DISTSRICT – 577101. ...PETITIONER (By Sri H.R.ANANTHA KRISHNA MURTHY, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ITS SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, VIDHANA SOUDHA, Dr.B.R.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BENGALURU - 560001 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER & THE CHAIRMAN DISTRICT STONE CRUSHERS LICENSING & REGULATION AUTHORITY CHICKMAGALUR DISTRICT, CHICKMAGALUR - 577101 3. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER TALUKA PANCHAYAT KADUR CHICKMAGALUR DISTRICT CHICKAMAGALUR - 577101 4. THE PANCHAYATH DEVELOPMENT OFFICER MALLESHWARA GRAMA PANCHAYAT MALLESWARA, KADUR CHICKMAGALUR DISTRICT CHICKMAGALUR - 577101 5. THE SENIOR GELOGIST MINES & GEOLOGY AND THE MEMBER SECRETARY, DISTRICT STONE CRUSHER LICENSING & REGULATION AUTHORITY, CHICKMAGALUR – 577 101.
6. THE SENIOR ENVIRONEMNTAL OFFICER KARNATAKA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD MANGALURU – 575 001.
7. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER AND THE MEMBER DISTRICT STONE CRUSHER LICENSING & REGULATION AUTHORITY TARIKERE DIVISION TARIKERE – 577 228 8. THE DEPUTY CONSERVATOR OF FOREST (DCF), AND THE MEMBER OF THE DISTRICT STONE CRUSHER LICENSING AND REGULATION AUTHORITY CHICKMAGALUR – 577 101.
9. SRI K S RAMESH, PROPRIETOR M/S SWARNAMBA STONE CRUSHER KADUR – 577 548.
10. THE CHAIRMAN KARNATAKA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD, CHURCH STREET, BENGALURU – 560 001.
11. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLCIE CHICKMAGALURU DISTRICT – 577 101.
12. SRI C.H.VENKATANARAYANA REDDY S/O RAGHAVA REDDY AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS R/AT CHENNAPURA ROAD, FORT, CHICKMAGALUR – 577 101. ...RESPONDENTS (By Sri BHANUPRAKASH.V.G., AGA FOR R1, R2, R5, R7, R8 & R11;
Sri SUBRAMANYA.R., ADVOCATE FOR R12;
R3 & R4 - served) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDR ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED IN CERTIFICATE DATD 14.12.2018 BY THE R-1 TO RUN THE STONE CURSHING UNIT VIDE ANNEXURE-AE AND THE PROCEEDINGS HELD ON 17.04.2017 UNDER ANNEXURE-M HELD BY THE SAND SUPERVISORY COMMITTEE IN SY.NO.261/2 [OLD SY.NO.118/94] OF MALLESHWARA VILLAGE AS A SAFE ZONE.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, P.S.DINESH KUMAR, J., MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R Though the matter is listed for consideration of service to un-served respondents, with consent of the learned Advocates for the parties, the matter is take up for final disposal.
2. Petitioner has presented this writ petition with a prayer to quash Certificate dated 14.12.2018 issued by the first respondent-State to run a Stone Crushing Unit.
3. Sri.H.R.Anantha Krishna Murthy, learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner principally contended that the petitioner is running a Poultry Farm in land bearing Sy.No.249 of Malleswara Village. Respondent No.12 has started a Stone Crushing Unit by name and style of “Swarnamba Stone Crusher and M-Sand Unit” in Sy.No.118/P4 of the very same village. There exist a temple and a residential house, poultry farm belonging to the petitioner in the vicinity. The stone crushing unit causes pollution. Therefore, the petitioner is before this Court with the above prayer.
4. Sri.Bhanuprakash.V.G., learned counsel appearing for the contesting respondents adverting to a communication dated 16.09.2017 by the State Pollution Control Board submits that after holding a proper inspection, the Pollution Control Board has given clearance for establishment of the stone crushing unit.
5. We have carefully considered the submissions and rival contentions and perused the records.
6. The communication by the Pollution Control Board is categorical in nature and it states that the petitioner has not established any chicken farm nor cattle farm nor any workers are staying in the adjacent land belonging to the complainant. In that view of the matter, prayer sought by the petitioner in this petition, in our view, does not merit any consideration.
In the result, petition fails and it is accordingly, dismissed.
In view of the dismissal of the writ petition, all interlocutory applications are dismissed.
No costs.
Sd/-
ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE Sd/- JUDGE DH