IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF MAY 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE G.NARENDAR WRIT PETITION No.16852 OF 2012 (LB) c/w WRIT PETITION No.16078 OF 2012 (LB) & WRIT PETITION No.18907 OF 2012 (LB) IN W.P.No. 16852/2012 Between:
Udyavara Grama Panchayath Udyavara – 574 1118 Udupi District Rep. by its President Gracy Machado Aged 48 years R/at Pithrody Udyavara – 574 1118 Udupi District.
(By Sri. S.K. Acharya, Advocate) And:
1. The Executive Officer Taluk Panchayath Udupi District Udupi – 576 101.
…Petitioner 2. M.K. Balaraj Aged 46 years S/o. Late M.K. Kanthappa Hindustan Fish Peeling Shed Pithrody Udyavara Village Udyavara – 574 1118 Udupi District.
(By Sri Ashok N. Nayak, Advocate for R1 …Respondents Sri S.R. Hegde Hudlamane, Advocate for R2 ) This writ petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying to quash the impugned order dated 10.02.2012 passed in appeal No.16/2011-12 on the file of the respondent No.1 vide Annexure-A and etc., IN W.P.No. 16078/2012 Between:
M.K. Balaraj S/o. Late M.K. Kanthappa Aged about 46 years Proprietor Hindustan Fish teeling Shed Pithrodi Udyavara Village Udupi Taluk Udupi District.
(By Sri S.R. Hegde Hudlamane, Advocate) And:
1. Udyavara Grama Panchayath Represented by Development Officer Udyavara Grama Panchayath …Petitioner Udupi Taluk Udupi District.
2. President Grecy Mathedo Aged about 45 years President Udyavara Grama Panchayath Udyavara Udupi Taluk Udupi District.
3. Executive Officer Taluk Panchayath Udupi Taluk Udupi District.
(By Sri S.K. Acharya for C/R2 & R1 Sri Ashok N. Nayak, Advocate for R3 ) …Respondents This writ petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying to quash the impugned order issued by the R1 Panchayath vide Annex-P, dtd.5.5.12, by issue of writ of certiorari or any other appropriate order, as the case may be and etc., IN W.P.No. 18907/2012 Between:
Udyavara Grama Panchayath Udyavara – 574 1118 Udupi District Rep. by its President Gracy Machado Aged 48 years R/at Pithrody Udyavara – 574 1118 Udupi District. …Petitioner (By Sri S.K. Acharya, Advocate) And:
1. The Executive Officer Taluk Panchayath Udupi District Udupi – 576 101.
2. M.K. Balaraj Aged about 46 years S/o. Late M.K. Kanthappa Hindustan Marine Industries Pithrody Udyavara Village Udyavara – 574 1118 Udupi District.
(By Sri Ashok N. Nayak, Advocate for R1 …Respondents Sri S.R. Hegde Hudlamane, Advocate for R2) This writ petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying to quash the impugned order dated 10.2.12 passed in appeal No.15/2011-12 on the file of the R1 vide Annex-A and etc., These writ petitions coming on for Orders this day, the Court made the following:
O R D E R Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the respondents.
2. These petitions involve common fact and common position of law. Hence, these petitions are taken up for disposal by the common order.
3. The crux of the dispute appears to be the alleged pollution caused to the river by respondent No.2 / industries (in WP Nos.16852/2012 and 18907/2012) which is said to be carrying on the business of manufacturing fish peels and feeds.
4. Case of the petitioner (in WP Nos.16852/2012 and 18907/2012) who is the Gram Panchayath is that; the effluents being discharged by these industries are causing a humungous problem and leading to fish bills in the river and that there has been a massive protest by the villagers which led to the lodging of the complaint before the appropriate authorities ie., the State Pollution Control Board.
5. The competent authority after enquiry, passed orders adverse to the interest of the respondent No.2 (in WP Nos.16852/2012 and 18907/2012) and the same was taken up in an appeal to the National Green Tribunal Bench (N.G.T) and the Tribunal initially was pleased to grant interim order restraining the respondents therein from interfering with the petitioner’s right to carry on the business. Thereafter, after hearing the parties, the N.G.T, Chennai has been pleased to allow the appeal and remitted the matter back for consideration afresh to the Environmental Officer.
6. Though the immediate question in the instant writ petitions are the necessity to obtain or grant of licence to carry on the industries. In the opinion of the Court and as fairly admitted by the counsels, the said matters are superfluous in view of the positive direction issued by the N.G.T., permitting the industries to carry on the business.
7. That being the admitted position, it is an admitted fact that this Court cannot conduct a judicial review of the order of the N.G.T. In that view of the matter, this Court is of the considered opinion that the instant petitions could be disposed by directing the parties to await the decision by the Environmental Officer. In the event, Environmental Officer opposes the claim of the respondent No.2 to run the industries, then the question of adjudicating the issue of grant of permission etc., by the petitioner – Panchayath arises. The consequential action and the grant or cancellation of trade licence is dependant on the report to be submitted by the Environmental Officer or the N.G.T.
8. In that view of the matter, petitions are disposed of by directing the parties to await the decision pursuant to the enquiry to be conducted by the Environmental Officer.
Writ petitions stand disposed of accordingly. It is made clear that all contentions are left open to be adjudicated before and by the appropriate / competent authority, in the pending proceedings.
Sd/-
JUDGE GH