Karnataka High Court
Sri Abdullah vs State Of Karnataka on 5 November, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:44575-DB
WP No. 21711 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. 21711 OF 2024 (GM-POL)
BETWEEN:
1. SRI ABDULLAH
S/O. LATE ALI
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS
PROPRIETOR OF M/S. M. B. INDUSTRY
PLOT NO. 66 P3,
KIADB INDUSTRIAL AREA
HUMNABAD TALUK
BIDAR DISTRICT.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI NAGARAJ D., ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally signed
by VALLI
MARIMUTHU 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
Location: High
Court of DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT
Karnataka M.S. BUILDING
DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI
BANGALORE - 560 001.
2. KARNATAKA STATE POLLUTION
CONTROL BOARD
PARISARA BHAVAN
NO. 49, CHURCH STREET
BANGALORE - 560 001
REPRESENTED BY ITS MEMBER SECRETARY.
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:44575-DB
WP No. 21711 of 2024
3. CENTRAL POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
(MINISTRY OF ENVIRONMENT, FOREST &
CLIMATE CHANGE, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA)
PARIVESH BHAWAN
EAST ARJUN NAGAR
SHAHDARA
DELHI - 110 032.,
REP. BY ITS MEMBER SECRETARY
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. NILOUFER AKBAR, AGA FOR R-1,
SRI MAHESH CHOWDHARY, ADVOCATE FOR R-2 &
V/O. DATED 28/10/2024 R3 IS 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 CLOSURE
ORDERS BEARING NO.PCB/110/NOB/2019-20/116 DATED
05/08/2023 ISSUED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION
31A OF THE AIR (PREVENTION AND CONTROL OF
POLLUTION) ACT, 1981 AND CLOSURE ORDER BEARING
NO.PCB/110/NOB/2017-18/115 DATED 05/08/2023 ISSUED
UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 33(A) OF THE WATER
(PREVENTION AND CONTROL OF POLLUTION) ACT, 1974
(FOR SHORT WATER ACT) BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT-STATE
BOARD, VIDE ANNEXURES-A AND B RESPECTIVELY.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
-3-
NC: 2024:KHC:44575-DB
WP No. 21711 of 2024
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 05.08.2023
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:44575-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 05.08.2023.
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 01.07.2018 to 30.06.2023 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:44575-DB
and pointed out that the closure order dated 05.08.2023 impugned
in the petition was passed pursuant to inspection carried out on
27.07.2023.
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:44575-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
