IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF JULY, 2019 PRESENT THE HON’BLE MR.ABHAY S. OKA, CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ WRIT PETITION NOS. 21673 OF 2019 AND 23120/2019, 23122/2019 & 23123/2019 (GM-POL) BETWEEN:
1. SMT. VARALAKSHMI W/O LATE UMESH KUMAR AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS YALADHALLI VILLAGE B.G.NAGAR (POST) KASABHA HOBLI NAGAMANGALA TALUK MANDYA - 571448 2. SRI JAYARAM S/O LATE SHIVANAGOWDA AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS BOMMENAHALLI VILLAGE BELLUR HOBLI BELLUR (POST) NAGAMANGALA TALUK MANDAY - 571448 3. SMT. ROOPA W/O THIMMEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS YALADHALLI VILLAGE B.G.NAGAR (POST) KASABA HOBLI NAGAMANGALA TALUK MANDYA - 571 448 4. SRI. SHIVANAGOWDA S/O LATE GANGAPPA AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS BOMMENAHALLI VILLAGE BELLUR HOBLI BELLUR (POST) NAGAMANGALA TALUK MANDYA - 571448 (BY SHRI M.V. VEDACHALA, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY CHIEF SECRETARY VIKAS SOUDHA BENGALURU - 560 001 2. THE KARNATAKA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN PARISARA BHAVANA 1ST TO 5TH FLOORS NO.49, CHURCH STREET BENGALURU - 560 001 3. SRI N.V. SRINIVASAIAH S/O. VENKATARAMANA SHETTY AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS PROPRIETOR M/S. SRI VENKATESHWHWARA RAGI CLEANING AND FLOOR MILL KATHA NO.126 BOMMASANDRA VILLAGE BELLUR CROSS B.G.NAGAR POST NAGAMANGALA TALUK MANDYA DISTRICT - 571 448 ... PETITIONERS ... RESPONDENTS (BY SHRI S.S. MAHENDRA, AGA FOR R1; SHRI GURURAJ JOSHI, ADVOCATE FOR R2;
SHRI A. CHANDRA CHUD, ADVOCATE FOR R3) THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH/SET ASIDE THE ORDER DTD:04.05.2019 PASSED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-H TO THE WRIT PETITION AND ETC.
THESE PETITIONS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, CHIEF JUSTICE MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER The registry is directed to show the name of Shri Gururaj Joshi as the advocate appearing for the second respondent.
2. The prayer in these writ petitions is for quashing the order passed by the second respondent-The Karnataka State Pollution Control Board, dealing with the industry of the third respondent.
3. The operative part of the said order reads thus:
’20. The Presiding Officer after hearing the complainants and the industry and keeping in view of the Hon’ble High Court orders in respect of W.P.3169/2019, took the following decision:
1) The proprietor of the unit has been directed to restrict the operation of the plant between 6 AM to 6 PM.
2) There shall not be any loading and unloading of raw materials and products during 6 PM to 6 AM.
3) There shall not be any nuisance to the neighbours due to the movement of vehicles.
4) The industry shall keep pollution control in good condition at all times. Stack and ambient air quality monitoring shall be carried out once in a month and submit reports to regional office regularly.
5) The Regional Office shall monitor the unit more frequently.
6) The Member Secretary shall revoke the closure directions with the above conditions.’ 4. The objection of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is to the observation made in clause 19 of the said order. He submitted that that merely by raising the compound wall, nuisance will not be eliminated.
5. The status report submitted by the second respondent indicates that on a particular day when samples were taken, air quality was within the permissible limits and decibel level of noise was also within permissible limits.
6. We have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties. The documents produced along with the status report by the second respondent show that samples were collected on 1st July, 2019 which were analyzed from 2nd July, 2019 to 4th July, 2019. The report records that the parameters of air quality was conforming to the requirements. The same is the case with ambient noise level which was recorded on 1st July, 2019.
7. One of the conditions imposed in paragraph 20 is that the regional office of the second respondent shall monitor the unit more frequently. There are other conditions which we have quoted above. The second respondent must ensure that its regional office monitors the unit frequently and reports are submitted at frequent intervals by the regional office to the second respondent. Moreover, if the third respondent commits any breach of the said conditions incorporated in paragraph 20, the second respondent is bound to take suitable action against the third respondent in accordance with law.
8. Therefore, as of today, no directions are required to be issued in these writ petitions and the same are disposed of accordingly.
Sd/- CHIEF JUSTICE Sd/- JUDGE vgh*