IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE WRIT PETITION NO.17684 OF 2018 (GM-POL) BETWEEN:
M/S SRI. NAKODA CONSTRUCTION LTD NO.133/1, 10TH FLOOR ’THE RESIDENCY’ RESIDENCY ROAD BANGLAORE REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR MR MAHAVEER GULECHA S/O SRI TEJRAJ GULECHA AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS.
(By Mr. K. SHASHIKIRAN SHETTY, SR. ADV., A/W Ms. FARAH FATHIMA, ADV.,) AND:
KARNATAKA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD PARISARA BHAVAN, I TO V FLOOR NO.49 CHURCH STREET BANGALORE-560 001 REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN.
(By Mr. GURURAJ JOSHI, ADV.,) - - -
… PETITIONER … RESPONDENT THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH ORDER DATED 04.01.2018 BEARING NO.PCB/353/CNP/12/685 REFUSING THE CONSENT UNDER SECTION 25(4)(b) READ WITH SECTION 27 OF THE WATEER (PREVENTION AND CONTROL OF POLLUTION) ACT, 1974 AS HIGHLY ARBITRARY, ILLEGAL AND VIOLATION OF UNDER ARTICLES 14, 19(1)(g), 21 AND 300A OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA ANNEXURE-A & ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
ORDER Mr.K.Shashi Kiran Shetty Senior counsel along with Smt.Farah Fathima, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Mr.Gururaj Joshi, learned counsel for the respondent.
2. The writ petition is admitted for hearing.
With consent of the parties, the same is heard finally.
3. In this petition, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:
a) Issue writ in the nature of Certiorari or any appropriate writ order or direction quashing order dated 4.1.2018 bearing No.PCB/353/CNP/12/685 refusing the consent under Section 25(4) (b) read with Section 27 of the Water (Prevention and Control of pollution) Act, 1974 as highly arbitrary illegal and violative of under Articles 14, 19(1)(g), 21 and 300A of the Constitution of India Annexure-A.
b) Issue writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction declaring that the petitioner application dated 7.6.2017 has deemed consent as per proviso to Section 25(1)(c) of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 Annexure-B.
c) Grant such other and further orders including the cost of this proceedings as may be necessary in the interest of justice.
4. When the matter was taken up today, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the impugned order has been passed without assigning any reasons and is bereft of any reasons and suffers from vice of non application of mind. Learned counsel for the respondent was unable to point out any reasons worth the name have been assigned. It is trite law that even a quasi-judicial authority is required to assign reasons for passing the order. In view of the decision laid down by the Supreme court in ‘VICTORIA MEMORIAL HALL vs. HOWRAH GANATANTRIK NAGRIK’, 2010 (3) SCC 732, reasons were held to be the heartbeat of every conclusion, apart from being an essential feature of the principles of natural justice, that ensure transparency and fairness, in the decision making process.
5. In view of the aforesaid enunciation of law, the impugned order dated 04.01.2018 passed by the Karnataka State Pollution Control Board cannot be sustained in the eye of law. It is accordingly quashed and set aside. However, the liberty is granted to the Karnataka State Pollution Control Board to afford an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and to pass a fresh order in accordance with law.
Accordingly, the petition is disposed of.
Sd/- JUDGE SS