Judgments
Judgments
  1. Home
  2. /
  3. High Court Of Karnataka
  4. /
  5. 2019
  6. /
  7. January

Yelahanka Puttenahalli Lake And vs Ministry Of Environment Forests And Climate Change Union Of India Indira Paryavaran Bhavan And Others

High Court Of Karnataka|08 March, 2019
|

JUDGMENT / ORDER

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU ON THE 8TH DAY OF MARCH, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. G. PANDIT WRIT PETITION NO.25189 OF 2018 (GM-RES/PIL) BETWEEN:
YELAHANKA PUTTENAHALLI LAKE AND BIRD CONSERVATION TRUST (REGD) REG NO.BNG(U)YLNK/BKIV/13/2013-2104 #9, 1ST MAIN, VINAYAKA LAYOUT PUTTENAHALLI, YELAHANKA BENGALURU-560064 REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRPERSON DR. K S SANGUNNI.
(BY MS. MAITREYI KRISHNAN, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. MINISTRY OF ENVIRONMENT FORESTS AND CLIMATE CHANGE UNION OF INDIA INDIRA PARYAVARAN BHAVAN JOR BAGH NEW DELHI-110003 REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.
... PETITIONER 2. STATE- LEVEL ENVIRONMENT IMPACT ASSESSMENT AUTHORITY ROOM NO.709, 7TH FLOOR 4TH GATE, M S BUILDING BENGALURU-560 001 REPRESENTED BY ITS MEMBER SECRETARY.
3. DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT ECOLOGY AND FORESTS GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA VIDHANA SOUDHA BENGALURU-560 001 REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.
4. M/S. KARNATAKA POWER CORPORATION LIMITED 22/23, SUDARSHAN COMPLEX SESHADRI ROAD BENGALURU-560 009 REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR.
... RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. MADHAVI R, CGC FOR RESPONDENT NO.1 SRI. D NAGARAJ, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.2 SRI. D NAGARAJ, AGA. FOR RESPONDENT NO.3 SRI. UDAYA HOLLA, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI. AJAY J NANDALIKE, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.4) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO DIRECT THE R-1 TO CONSIDER THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER AND INITIATE NECESSARY ACTION AGAINST THE R-4 TOWARDS THE CANCELLATION OF THE ILLEGAL AND VOID ENVIRONMENTAL CLEARANCE DATED 01.09.2015 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT HEREIN [PLACED HEREWITH AS ANNEXURE-K].
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP THIS DAY, RAVI MALIMATH J., PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER The petitioner claims to be a registered trust, which is also involved in public interest. It seeks for a writ of mandamus to direct the first respondent – Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change, Union of India, to consider the representation of the petitioner vide Annexures S and T. In terms whereof under the provisions of The Environment (Protection) Act, 1986, they have sought for a direction to the first respondent to restrain the fourth respondent – M/s. Karnataka Power Corporation Limited from proceeding with the project, which is based on the environmental clearance dated 1.09.2015 in terms of Annexure K. It is contended that the grant of this environmental clearance is opposed to law and therefore, it affects public interest. Various other contentions have been raised with regard to the manner in which the public and environment are affected by the grant of this environment clearance.
2. The same is objected to, by the State through their statement of objections.
3. The second respondent - State Level Environment Impact Assessment Authority has narrated the manner in which the environmental clearances have been granted. The clearances have been granted on compliance with law and substantial conditions have also been imposed.
4. Respondent No.4 has supported the environmental clearances given to them. They have produced a memo enclosing various photographs to show the final stage of the Gas-based Power Plant at Yelahanka.
5. On hearing the learned counsels, we do not find any merit in this petition. Primarily as could be seen from the representation made by the petitioner, the same is a relief sought for to set aside the Environmental Clearance granted to respondent No.4. The said order is appealable to the National Greens Tribunal. Therefore, it is not appropriate to entertain this petition. Even otherwise, on considering the material on record, we do not find that there is any violation of law in granting the environmental clearance. The environmental clearance is granted in a manner known to law, after following the procedure involved therein.
6. Under these circumstances, we do not find any ground to proceed further. The petition is dismissed. Liberty always exists with the petitioner to pursue such remedies as available in law.
Sd/- Sd/-
JUDGE JUDGE NG*CT:bms
Disclaimer: Above Judgment displayed here are taken straight from the court; Vakilsearch has no ownership interest in, reservation over, or other connection to them.
Title

Yelahanka Puttenahalli Lake And vs Ministry Of Environment Forests And Climate Change Union Of India Indira Paryavaran Bhavan And Others

Court

High Court Of Karnataka

JudgmentDate
08 March, 2019
Judges
  • S G Pandit
  • Ravi Malimath