Karnataka High Court
M/S.6H Industries vs State Of Karnataka on 5 November, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:44573-DB
WP No. 21430 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2024
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR N. V. ANJARIA, CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND
WRIT PETITION NO. 21430 OF 2024 (GM-POL)
BETWEEN:
1. M/S. 6H INDUSTRIES
TYRE PYROLYSIS PLANT
PLOT NO. 122 D, ROAD NO. 50
KIADB INDUSTRIAL AREA
GADWANTI VILLAGE
BIDAR - 585 330
REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETRIX
MRS. HUMERA RAHMAN
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. NAGARAJ D.,ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally
signed by 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
AMBIKA H B DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT
Location: M.S. BUILDING
High Court DR. B. R AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
of Karnataka BANGALORE - 560 001.
2. KARNATAKA STATE POLLUTION
CONTROL BOARD
PARISARA BHAVAN
NO. 49, CHURSH STREET
BANGALORE - 560 001
REPRESENTED BY ITS MEMBER SECRETARY.
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:44573-DB
WP No. 21430 of 2024
3. CENTRAL POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
(MINISTRY OF ENVIRONMENT FOREST AND CLIMATE
CHANGE, GOVERMENT OF INDIA )
PARIVESH BHAWAN
EAST ARJUN NAGAR
SHAHDARA
DELHI - 110 032
REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY.
4. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR
GESCOM, CORPORATE OFFICE
STATION ROAD
KALABURAGI - 585 102.
5. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, AEE
GESCOM O & M DIVISION
HUMNABAD - 585 353.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. NILOUFER AKBAR, AGA FOR R-1,
SRI MAHESH CHOWDHARY, ADVOCATE FOR R-2 &
V/O. DATED 28/10/2024 R3 TO R-5 DELETED FROM
ARRAY OF PARTIES)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO
ISSUE A WRIT ORDER OR DIRECTION IN THE NATURE OF
CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT AS THIS
HON'BLE COURT DEEMS FIT, QUASHING THE ORDERS
DATED BEARING No-PCB/WMC-2/2024/73 DATED 23.07.2024
ISSUED UNDER THE PROVISION OF SECTION 31-A OF THE
AIR (PREVENTION AND CONTROL OF POLLUTION) ACT, 1981
READ WITH RULE 20-A OF THE KARNATAKA AIR
(PREVENTION AND CONTROL OF POLLUTION) RULES 1983
AND ORDER BEARING No-KSPCB/1270/WMC-2/2019-20/72
DATED 23.07.2024 ISSUED UNDER THE PROVISION OF
SECTION 33(A) OF THE WATER (PREVENTION AND CONTROL
OF POLLUTION) ACT, 1974 READ WITH RULES 34 FRAMED
THEREUNDER ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT - BOARD
VIDE ANNEXURE - A AND B.
-3-
NC: 2024:KHC:44573-DB
WP No. 21430 of 2024
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. JUSTICE
N. V. ANJARIA
and
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
MR. JUSTICE N. V. ANJARIA)
Heard learned advocate Mr. D. Nagaraj for the petitioner,
learned Additional Government Advocate Smt. Niloufer Akbar for
respondent No.1-State and leaned advocate Mr. Mahesh
Chowdhary for respondent No.2-Karnataka State Pollution Control
Board.
2. The petitioner-Industry which is stated to be engaged in the
production of Pyrolysis Oil has filed this petition under Article 226 of
the Constitution, praying to set aside the order dated 23.07.2024
issued by respondent No.2 under the provisions of Section 31-A of
the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 read with
Rule 20-A of the Karnataka Air (Prevention and Control of
Pollution) Rules, 1983 as well as the order of even date issued
under provisions of Section 33(A) of the Water (Prevention and
Control of Pollution) Act, 1974, read with Rule 34 of the Rules.
NC: 2024:KHC:44573-DB
2.1 It was prayed to direct respondent No.2-the Karnataka State
Pollution Control Board and respondent No.3-the Central Pollution
Control Board to provide time-line granting a reasonable time of
two years to the petitioner-Industry to switch over to the new SOP
2024 to install new machineries and equipments by the
aforementioned order dated 23.07.2024.
3. The competent authority of the Karnataka State Pollution
Control Board directed the petitioner to close down the operation of
the Industry forthwith and the powers supplied to the unit is ordered
to be stopped. The closure of the unit was also directed.
4. While various grounds were advanced by learned advocate
for the petitioner to assail the aforesaid order, learned advocate for
the respondent-the Karnataka State Pollution Control Board has
filed the memo dated 25.10.2024. Therein it was pointed out that
the entire challenge to this aforesaid order was not well conceived
inasmuch as the Consent to operate given to the petitioner-Industry
was valid from 01.07.2019 to 30.06.2024 only.
4.1 In other words, it was pointed out that there was no consent
to operate given for the petitioner and therefore, the petitioner unit
was liable to be closed on that count only. It was further submitted
NC: 2024:KHC:44573-DB
and pointed out that the closure order dated 23.07.2024 impugned
in the petition was passed pursuant to inspection carried out on
25.06.2024 and after duly considering the reply of the petitioner
which was filed on 08.07.2024.
5. When the order was passed after hearing the petitioner and
considering the reply more particularly, the petitioner unit does not
have the valid consent to operate, it could not be said to be illegal
in any manner and the same is not liable to be interfered with.
5.1 Learned advocate for the petitioner submitted by filing the
memo dated 28.10.2024 that another industry named M/s. Maniyar
Industry, Kalaburagi is granted the consent. The documents
figuring with the said memo show, that it is a consent for
Establishment-Expansion. Learned advocate for the petitioner
relied on the said order passed in favour of the said Industry.
5.2 It is to be observed in this regard that the petitioner has to
stand on its own legs and could not rely on the consent granted to
any other industry since the facts for each unit would defer. At the
same time, the respondent-authorities will examine the merits of
the case and contention of the petitioner that said M/s. Maniyar
Industry is given the consent is placed in similar circumstances as
NC: 2024:KHC:44573-DB
that of the petitioner and the petitioner is required to be treated in
identical manner.
5.3 In any view, it will be open for the petitioner to press into
service the said order given in favor of another industry while
pursuing its application for expansion for grant of consent for
operation for which the application of the petitioner is stated to be
pending.
6. Therefore, while dismissing the petition as meritless, it is
provided that the petitioner may pursue its application for grant of
consent stated to be pending before the Pollution Control Board
which shall be considered by the Board strictly in accordance with
law and on merits preferably within twelve weeks'.
7. The present petition stands dismissed.
Sd/-
(N. V. ANJARIA)
CHIEF JUSTICE
Sd/-
(K. V. ARAVIND)
JUDGE
DDU
