Karnataka High Court
A N Padma vs M V Venkatasubbaiah Shetty on 25 April, 2024
Author: Suraj Govindaraj
Bench: Suraj Govindaraj
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:16797
WP No. 57540 of 2014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF APRIL, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ
WRIT PETITION NO. 57540 OF 2014 (LB-RES)
BETWEEN:
A N PADMA
AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS,
D/O NAGABHUSHANA,
BHARATHI STREET,
SRINGERI-577 139
CHIKKAMAGALUR DIST
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI: GURURAJ .R. ADVOCATE)
AND
1. M V VENKATASUBBAIAH SHETTY
AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS,
S/O VEERAIAH SHETTY,
(R1 IS DEAD AND R2 IS SON WHO IS
RUNNING THE INDUSTRY AND R2 WHO
IS ALREADY ON RECORD TO BE
Digitally signed CONSIDERED AS L.R OF R1, AMENDED AS PER
by SHWETHA ORDER DATED 14.7.2022)
RAGHAVENDRA
Location: High 2. M V GURURAJ
Court of AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,
Karnataka S/O M V VENKATASUBBAIAH SHETTY
R/AT MOODALAGIRI COFFEE WORKS
BHARATHI BEEDI,
SRINGERI-577 139
CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT
3. THE PATTANA PANCHAYAT
SRINGERI-577 139
CHIKKMAGALURU DISTRICT
REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF OFFICER
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:16797
WP No. 57540 of 2014
4. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
CHIKKMAGALURU DISTRICT
CHIKKAMAGALURU -577 102
5. THE TAHASILDAR AND TALUK MAGISTRATE
KOPPA TALUK ,KOPPA-577 126
CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT
6. THE KARNATAKA STATE POLLUTION
CONTROL BOARD, REGIONAL OFFICE,
3RD CROSS, 4TH PHASE,
KALYANAGARA,
CDA LAYOUT, JYOTHINAGAR POST,
CHIKAMAGALUR-577102
REPRESENTED BY ITS
ENVIRONMENTAL & POLLUTION
CONTROL OFFICER.
(IMPLEADED AS PER COURT ORDER
DATED 28.11.201)
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. T K VISHWAJITH &
SRI. R SRINIVASA., ADVOCATES FOR R1 & R2
SRI. GIREESHA KODGI., ADVOCATE FOR R3
SRI. CHANNAPPA ERAPPA., AGA FOR R4 & R5;
SRI. GURURAJ JOSHI., ADVOCATE FOR R6)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECTING THE
RESPONDENTS 3 TO 6 TO STOP THE INDUSTRY ENGAGED IN THE
MANUFACTURE OF BANANA CHIPS AND COFFEE HURLING UNIT
CARRIED ON WITHOUT OBTAINING LICENCE/NOC/PERMISSION
FORM THE COMPETENT AUTHORITIES IN THE RESIDENTIAL
PREMISES OF RESPONDENTS 1 AND 2 SITUATED IN BHARATHI
BEEDI AT SRINGERI TOWN FORTHWITH; AND DIRECT THE
RESPONDENTS 3 TO 6 TO TAKE ALL SUCH OTHER SUITABLE
ACTION, BOTH PREVENTIVE AND PUNITIVE IN THE MATTER
AGAINST RESPONDENTS 1 AND2 IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AND
ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS AND HAVING
BEEN RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 19.03.2024, THIS DAY, THE
COURT PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:
-3-
NC: 2024:KHC:16797
WP No. 57540 of 2014
ORDER
1. The petitioner is before this Court seeking for the following reliefs;
a. Directing the respondents 3 to 6 to stop the industry engaged in the manufacture of banana chips and coffee hurling unit carried on without obtaining licence/NOC/permission form the Competent Authorities in the residential premises of respondents 1 and 2 situated in Bharathi Beedi at Sringeri town forthwith; and direct the respondents 3 to 6 to take all such other suitable action, both preventive and punitive in the matter against respondents 1 and2 in accordance with law;
b. Granting such other orders or reliefs as this Hon'ble Court deems it fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case; and c. Awarding costs of the writ petition.
2. The petitioner along with family members claims to be residing in Bharathi Beedi (Bharathi Road) in Sringeri, respondents No.1 and 2 are stated to be the neighbour's. Respondent No.1 expired during the pendency of the above proceedings, respondent No.2 is stated to be his only legal representative who is carrying on the business in question in the present matter.
-4-
NC: 2024:KHC:16797 WP No. 57540 of 2014 2.1. It is stated that respondent No.1 (during his lifetime) and respondent No.2 have been running an industry or factory in their house for the manufacture of banana chips and coffee powder by processing the coffee seeds on a large scale commercial basis and marketing the same in entire State of Karnataka. 2.2. It is contended that respondents No.1 and 2 had not obtained any permission from respondent No.3-Pattana Panchayath or the Pollution Control Board.
2.3. It is alleged that respondents No.1 and 2 prepared Banana Chips of about 8-9 quintals a day and coffee powder at about 1-2 quintals a day by employing 18 to 20 persons and for such manufacture cashew nut husk was used as fuel which when burnt emits thick smoke, irritating and foul smell is generated making it difficult for the neighbours to breath, made them sick and asthmatic.
-5-
NC: 2024:KHC:16797 WP No. 57540 of 2014 2.4. The raw banana procured and stored in the premises after use of the outer skin is dumped in the open yard allowing them to decay which is producing bad and unbearable smell causing health hazard to petitioner and his family members.
2.5. The coffee fruits which are procured are dried and stored in the premises proessed and converted into coffee seeds by undertaking the process of de-husking/peeling/hulling, roasting etc., the waste generated is also dumped in the yard giving raise to dust, bad and foul smell. 2.6. Since all the waste material are dumped in the yard on account of rains, the seepage of the decayed matter into the earth has adversely affected the drinking water resulting in the well water of the petitioner also emitting foul smell. 2.7. On the basis of the above, it is contended that there is an air, water, soil as also sound -6- NC: 2024:KHC:16797 WP No. 57540 of 2014 pollution caused by the respondent affecting the petitioner and her family.
2.8. The industry of respondents No.1 and 2 has been started in the year 2007, the petitioner has been opposing the same, has given several complaints to the Panchayat and the Pollution Control Board, requested respondents No.1 and 2 to shift the business out of the residential area. However, neither the authorities nor respondents No.1 and 2 have heeded to the request of the petitioners and the Pollution Controls unabated.
2.9. The panchayat blaming it on the Pollution Control Board, the Pollution Control Board blaming it on the Panchayat and stating that the other has to take action, none has taken action, and it is in that background respondents No.1 and 2 have merrily continued with their business.
-7-
NC: 2024:KHC:16797 WP No. 57540 of 2014 2.10. No license has been secured from the panchayat for the running of the industry or trade in the premises after repeated follow up respondent No.3 had issued notices to respondents to take measures to prevent pollution and nuisance failing which the industry would have to be closed. Despite seven notices having been issued respondents No.1 and 2 did not comply with to the notices. Despite non- compliance respondent No.3 has not taken any action.
2.11. It is contended that this is so on account of respondents No.1 and 2 being financially and politically powerful, respondent No.3 is only paying lip service and not taking any action. 2.12. The petitioner therefore approached the Taluka Legal Service Authority, it is only thereafter that the officials of the Pollution Control Board, Chikkamangaluru inspected the shop with his squad and found an industry running and -8- NC: 2024:KHC:16797 WP No. 57540 of 2014 pollution being caused. A report has been submitted that more than 10-12 workers are engaged, 500 Kgs of chips are manufactured everyday and cashew husk is used as a fuel causing bad, irritating smoke and smell. 2.13. The report having been submitted on 22.10.2012, a notice came to be issued by the pollution control board on 14.2.2014, despite which respondent did not comply with the said notice.
2.14. The Taluka Legal Services Authority also issued notices, respondents No.1 and 2 did not bother with the notices and remained absent. The Taluka Legal Service Authority directed respondent No.3 to take suitable action vide its order dated 18.2.2013 despite which no action was taken. Finally having no other option, the petitioner filed the present writ petition on 12.12.2014.
-9-
NC: 2024:KHC:16797 WP No. 57540 of 2014
3. Sri.Vigneshwar Shastri., learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners would submits that; 3.1. The life of the petitioner and neighbours have been adversely affected by the factory being run by respondents No.1 and 2 in a residential area, as regards which no action has been taken either by the Panchayat or by Pollution Control Board. Once an inspection had been done by Pollution Control Board, the Pollution Control Board could not have kept quite without following it through to the logical legal end ensuring compliance with the applicable laws. 3.2. There is complete abdication of the duties on party of the Panchayath and Pollution Control Board. Both these authorities are required to take proactive and preventive steps to protect the citizens, to ensure that no pollution is caused by any industry and even if some pollution is caused the same is to be within the
- 10 -
NC: 2024:KHC:16797 WP No. 57540 of 2014 permissible limits as per the applicable rules, regulations, circulars, notification issued. 3.3. No industry can be run in a residential area nor can any industry be permitted to commence its activities in a residential area, necessary permission from the Pollution Control Board for establishment as also operation is required to be obtained.
3.4. The pollution control board is required to conduct periodical inspections to ascertain as to whether any pollution has been caused and if so, is it within the permissible limits. 3.5. In the present case both the panchayat and Pollution Control Board being in full knowledge of pollution being caused haves only paid lip service by issuing notices, thereafter no action has been taken, the pollution control board stating that it is the panchayat which has to take action, the panchayat stating the pollution
- 11 -
NC: 2024:KHC:16797 WP No. 57540 of 2014 control board which is required to be taken action.
3.6. He relies on the judgment in Chandrashekar v. State of Karnataka1 more particularly para 6 thereof, which is reproduced hereunder for easy reference:
6. The learned Counsel for 4th respondent Sri H.C. Shivaramu has submitted that, when they have received the complaint, they have made the spot inspection and after considering the ground reality of that area, the request of the 5th respondent has been considered. Therefore, no error or irregularity was committed by the 4th respondent in issuing the licence to the 5th respondent. The said submission made by the learned Counsel for 4th respondent is liable to be rejected at threshold for the reason that, on a careful reading of the communication sent by the Karnataka State Pollution Control Board, Mandya, dated 24th January, 2004, to the 5th respondent, as referred above and the 4th respondent being the Competent Authority, it is duty cast on them to get the correct position of the spot before considering his request, as to whether the said site comes within the residential/commercial/industrial zone or not. But the 4th respondent, without obtaining NOC from the Town Planning Authority, Mandya and without taking clearance certificate from the Regional Office of the Karnataka State Pollution Control Board, Mandya, has proceeded to pass the resolution contrary to the mandatory provisions of the Karnataka Municipalities Act, 1964 and its bye-laws. Therefore, the manner in which the 4th respondent has proceeded to pass the resolution/order is not sustainable at any stretch of imagination.1
(2006) 2 Kant LJ 291
- 12 -
NC: 2024:KHC:16797 WP No. 57540 of 2014 3.7. Relying on the above he submits that there is a requirement to designate residential and commercial areas, in any Municipality or the Corporation and see to it that no industrial activity is carried out within the residential limits.
3.8. He also relies on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Delhi Pradesh Citizen Council v. Union of India2, more particularly para 9 thereof, which is reproduced hereunder for easy reference:
9. The learned Solicitor General, on taking instructions and having discussion with the officers, has filed a brief note on the basis whereof we have heard him and other learned counsel.
Considering that note, despite the impugned Act and the notices, we direct that the following activities shall not be carried on in residential areas:
(1) Banquet halls.
(2) Any trade or activity involving any kind of obnoxious, hazardous, inflammable, non-
compatible and polluting substance or process. (3) Retail shops of the following kind: 2
2006 (6) SCC 305
- 13 -
NC: 2024:KHC:16797 WP No. 57540 of 2014
(a) building materials (timber, marble, iron and steel and sand), firewood, coal and any fire hazardous and other bulky materials;
(b) repair shops of automobiles repair and workshop, cycle rickshaw repair, tyre resoling and retreading, and battery charging;
(c) storage, godown and warehousing;
(d) junk shop;
(e) liquor shop;
(f) printing, dyeing and varnishing.
Note: (i) In (a) will not be included business of finished marble products where cutting and polishing activity of marble is not undertaken.
(ii) The repair shops and workshops in case of automobile and cycle rickshaws, would presently be not stopped on plots abutting mixed use streets of right of way of 30 m or more.
(4) Retail shops on floors other than ground floor except (a) on streets of 24 m right of way or more, (b) where it was permissible as per the Master Plan, 1962.
(5) Professional activities will not be permissible except by architects, chartered accountants, doctors and lawyers. Even by these professionals, professional activity will not be carried on in excess of 50% permissible coverage in residential premises and by anyone who is not a resident in such premises.
(6) Banks and nursing homes operating on plots of less than 200 sq.m. in the case of residential plotted development (160 sq.m. in villages, special areas and rehabilitation colonies) and more than 1000 sq.m., except those operating on master plan and zonal plan roads.
- 14 -
NC: 2024:KHC:16797 WP No. 57540 of 2014 (7) Guest houses operating on plots of less than 200 sq.m. in the case of residential plotted development (160 sq.m. in villages and rehabilitation colonies) and more than 1000 sq.m., except those operating in special areas or on master plan and zonal plan roads.
(8) Pre-primary schools, fitness centres and gyms operating on floors other than ground floor. 3.9. By relying on the same, he submits that the activities aforementioned will not be carried out in a residential area. The business carried out by respondents No.1 and 2 involves obnoxious, hazardous, polluting substances which would come within the embargo imposed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the aforesaid case. 3.10. Thus, he submits that the above petition will have to be allowed, and direction be issued to respondents No.1 and 2 to close the factory and/or direct the Panchayath and the Pollution Control Board take such action as available under law.
- 15 -
NC: 2024:KHC:16797 WP No. 57540 of 2014
4. Sri.T.K.Vishwajith., learned counsel appearing for respondents No.1 and 2 now respondent No.2 submits that;
4.1. The petitioner had filed a suit in OS No.16/2007 seeking for permanent injunction against respondent No.1 on more or similar cause of action. Since no order of injunction was granted the Regular Appeal in RA No.68/2009 was filed. During the pendency of the said appeal, the present writ petition has been filed and as such he contends that the petitioner cannot approach two forums for the same relief.
4.2. His submission is that respondents No.1 and 2 are running a household factory which does not require any permission or license from the Panchayath. However, a trade license has been obtained from respondent No.3 which should suffice and satisfy any such requirement.
- 16 -
NC: 2024:KHC:16797 WP No. 57540 of 2014 4.3. Respondent No.1 and 2 have also been using necessary equipment to avoid pollution like installation of scrubber by incurring huge cost. 4.4. Respondent No.3 has been visiting the property of the respondents No.1 and 2 periodically and has certified that the business has been carried out properly, the premises are neat and clean and that there is no pollution caused. His submission is also that respondents No.1 and 2 have obtained a certificate from M/s Nexus Test Labs which certified that emission is within the acceptable limits.
4.5. The Pollution Control Board has stated that the Banana Chips Manufacturing Unit would not come within the purview of the Pollution Control Board and there is no necessity for obtaining NOC from them. Therefore, there is no violation committed by respondents No.1 and 2. 4.6. The business which has been carried on by the respondents is the sole source of livelihood of
- 17 -
NC: 2024:KHC:16797 WP No. 57540 of 2014 respondents No.1 and 2, there being enmity between the petitioner and respondents No.1 and 2 a false case has been filed, apart from the petitioner no one else has complained of pollution.
4.7. There is no zonal classification in the Town of Sringeri, the Town Panchayat Sringeri has not been declared as local planning area under Section 4 of Town and Country Planning Act, 1961. It is hub of residential, commercial and industrial activities all of them existing together there is no separation. Thus, it has to be construed as an integrated township with the local authority having afforded permission for carrying out of business activities, local authorities having granted/sanctioned license and collecting taxes, respondent No.2 cannot now be prevented from running its business. 4.8. Respondent No.2 is using biomass, which is an alternative to gas, biomass being a regular
- 18 -
NC: 2024:KHC:16797 WP No. 57540 of 2014 alternative fuel the KSPCB cannot insist on LPG or CNG or electric power to be used. 4.9. Respondent No.2 not only sells banana chips but also sells condiments, fruits, coffee powder, cardamom, pepper since the Sringeri Town is very famous and popular tourist destination and a temple town. Respondent No.2 running a cottage industry, the cottage industry is to be encouraged. Commercial activities in small towns are providing a source of living and livelihood for several families. 4.10. There is no particular compliant by any other persons apart from the petitioner and as such the petition is required to be dismissed. 4.11. There is no separate classification for banana chips only classification under the notification published on 15.6.2016 is for bakery/confectionery/sweet product which is different from banana chips which require only frying of cut pieces of bananas and is not
- 19 -
NC: 2024:KHC:16797 WP No. 57540 of 2014 manufacturing process as such. There being no such classification the classification of bakery/confectionery/sweet products cannot be applied to respondent No.2's business. There would have to be a separate categorization required to be made for chips more particularly banana chips. Since banana chips are not covered in the notification the same would not apply to Respondent No.2's business 4.12. Biomass, biofuels, agricultural refuels are approved fuels, respondent No.2 using these biomasses, it cannot be said that any pollution has occurred from such use of permitted fuels. The Ministry of New and renewable Energy has been encouraging the use of biofuel or biomass as an alternative sources of energy. 4.13. Under the Air Act, it is for the Pollution Control Board to inspect Air Pollution Control areas asses the quality of air and take steps for prevention, control or abatement of the Air
- 20 -
NC: 2024:KHC:16797 WP No. 57540 of 2014 Pollution. The area where the production unit of the respondent is located is not declared as a Pollution Control Area. Therefore, the KSPCB would not have any jurisdiction over the matter.
4.14. The KSPCB has not by itself monitored the pollution caused but has only acted on the basis of a complaint filed by the petitioners carried out an inspection, measured the alleged pollutants and contended that this pollution is caused. This is not an independent assessment made by the KSPCB but only at the behest of the petitioner which cannot be taken into account. On all the above grounds he submits that the above petition is required to be dismissed.
5. Sri.Gururaj Joshi., learned counsel appearing for PCB submits as under;
5.1. In terms of the notification bearing No. DEE 5 ECO 87 Dated 30-05-1988 the Government of
- 21 -
NC: 2024:KHC:16797 WP No. 57540 of 2014 Karnataka has declared the whole of Karnataka as Air Pollution Zone and as such the Karnataka Pollution Control Board would have jurisdiction over the entire State of Karnataka, irrespective of whether the area comes under a Panchayath, Municipality, Corporation or a Development Authority.
5.2. His submission is that the officers of the Pollution Control Board can exercise jurisdiction and powers under the Air Act as also under the Water Act in respect of any property situate within the State of Karnataka.
5.3. Insofar as the contention of learned counsel for respondent No.2 that the test has been carried out at the behest of the petitioner, he submits that only when there is a compliant received by the KSPCB that test is conducted, samples are obtained, after obtaining the samples from the site they are sent to the laboratory for testing, examination and report.
- 22 -
NC: 2024:KHC:16797 WP No. 57540 of 2014 5.4. There are very few realtime Online Testing Centres which have been established across the State of Karnataka which continuously monitor Air and Water Pollution.
5.5. Apart from those continues monitoring system in rest of the areas the testing is done on a need basis whenever a compliant is received. Thus, he submits that no fault can be found in relation thereto.
5.6. Insofar as the industry of the respondent No.2 is concerned he submit that for an industry to come within automatic route i.e., the green list to be established without the requirement of consent for establishment (CFE) and to operate without a consent for operation (CFO) there are various factors which are required to be complied with namely relating to nature of industry, nature of fuel/power which is used, the quantity of production etc.,.
- 23 -
NC: 2024:KHC:16797 WP No. 57540 of 2014 5.7. In the present case the respondent No.2 is involved in manufacturing of banana chips the same would come under the category bakery/confessionary and in terms of the notification no KSPCB/798/COC/2016-17/1425 dated 15.06.2016 such an industry can be automatically established if the daily production is less than 1 ton per day i.e., less than 1000 kgs per day and should be run on either electricity or gas used as fuel.
5.8. In the present case neither electricity nor gas has been used as a fuel the said biomass being used as a fuel for burning would not come within the automatic route and as such both consent for establishment and consent for operation would have to be obtained by a person running a such an industry. Respondent No.2 not having obtained such permission has not complied with the mandate of the Air and Water Act.
- 24 -
NC: 2024:KHC:16797 WP No. 57540 of 2014 5.9. His submission is that KSPCB is not concerned with the zoning of an area as residential, industrial or otherwise i.e., the domain of the local authority. Irrespective of whether the concerned property is coming under different zoning the pollution control norms would have to be followed by the industry.
6. Sri. Gireesha Kodgi., learned counsel appearing for respondent No.3-Municpality submitted as under:
6.1. Respondent No.3 has issued a trade license for respondent No.2 to carry on its business, respondent No.2 does not have any wherewithal to assess the pollution if any caused, that is the sole domain of KSPCB. The municipality does not have either the human resources nor the technical resources to assess pollution caused and as such the municipality does not look into this.
6.2. Insofar as the city of Sringeri is concerned he submits that there is no zoning of areas which
- 25 -
NC: 2024:KHC:16797 WP No. 57540 of 2014 has been made. Thus, the trade license would also be issued to an industry even it is surrounded by residential buildings. There being no such restriction respondent No.3 running its industry cannot be found fault with.
7. Heard Sri.Gururaj.R., learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Sri.T.K.Vishwajith., learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1 and 2, Sri.Gireesha Kodgi., learned counsel appearing for respondent No.3, learned AGA for respondent No.4 and 5 and Sri.Gururaj Joshi., learned counsel appearing for respondent No.6. Perused papers.
8. The points that would arise for consideration are:
1. Whether the industry of manufacture of banana chips would come within the purview of Bakery/ confectionery in the notification no KSPCB/798/COC/2016-
17/1425 dated 15.06.2016?
2. In the present case, is the industry operated by respondent No.2 a green industry that does not require consent for establishment or consent for operation from the KSPCB?
- 26 -
NC: 2024:KHC:16797 WP No. 57540 of 2014
3. Whether the test being conducted by KSPCB on complaint received from the petitioner can be said to be bad in law?
4. Could respondent No.2 be permitted to continue his business of manufacturing banana chips?
5. Whether the action or inaction on the part of Municipalities and KSPCB is proper and correct?
6. General Directions
7. What order?
9. Answer to point No. 1- Whether the industry of manufacture of banana chips would come within the purview of Bakery/ confectionery in the notification no KSPCB/798/COC/2016-17/1425 dated 15.06.2016?
9.1. Bakery is defined in various law lexicon/ dictionaries as under:
Bakery3 A place where bread, cakes, and pastries are made or sold BAKERY4.
Any place used for the purpose of mixing, compounding, or baking for sale or for purposes of a restaurant, bakery or hotel, any bread, biscuit, 3 Cambridge dictionary 4 Black's law dictionary
- 27 -
NC: 2024:KHC:16797 WP No. 57540 of 2014 pretzels, crackers, buns, rolls, macaroni, cake, pies, or any food products of which flour or meal is a principal ingredient. Continental Baking Co. v. Campbell, 176 Okl. 218, 55 P.2d 114, 116. 5 A bakery is a building where bread, pastries, and cakes are baked, or the shop where they are sold.
9. In Chicago v. Drogasawacz, 256 Ill. 35, a bakery has been held to be any place used for the purpose of mixing, compounding or baking for sale or for purposes of a restaurant, bakery or hotel, any bread, biscuit, pretzels, crackers, buns, rolls, macaroni, cake, pies or any food products of which flour or meal is a principal ingredient; therefore, applying the rules previously discussed in Veazey Drug Co. v. Bruza, supra, we think that it may be fairly said that the term "wholesale bakery" means a business or industry where food products composed principally of flour or meal are prepared and sold in gross to the retail dealer and vendor, and is embraced in the term "wholesale mercantile establishment," and is therefore included in the designated classes of industries and businesses which come within the meaning and operation of the Workmen's Compensation Law6.
9.2. The meaning of Confectionery is defined as under; 7
a place where sweets or chocolate are made or sold:
5 Collins dictionary 6 CONTINENTAL BAKING CO. v. CAMPBELL 176 Okl. 218, 55 P.2d 114,
116. 7 Cambridge dictionary
- 28 -
NC: 2024:KHC:16797 WP No. 57540 of 2014 8 confectionery, kon-fek'shun-èr-i, n. sweetmeats in general; a place for making or selling sweet meats. 9
Confectionery- sweets, biscuits and cakes. 10 Confectionery- sweet and chocolates Collectively 11 Confectionery- is sweet edibles (as candy), 12
23. Confectionery therefore, is sweetmeat, while biscuit is in the nature of dry bread which has the characteristic of being baked. It cannot therefore be said that biscuit and confectionary are identical. But there can be fancy biscuits in which confectionary can be put on the top of them. But the essential characteristic of biscuit is different from that of confectionery. When therefore registration is granted under Trade Marks Act with respect to biscuit it cannot obviously give at right to its proprietor of the mark to use that trader mark for confectionery. If he does so and there is already a registered owner of the same or similar mark with respect to confectionery the latter can sustain an action for infringement. 13 Confectionery - a sweetmeat made of sugar, syrup or honey or the like, not identical with the biscuit.
8 CHAMBERS'S ETYMOLOGICAL DICTIONARY, W. & R. CHAMBERS LONDON AND EDINBURGH. 1874 9 CHAMBERS'S 21st century dictionary 10 Concise Oxford English Dictionary, Indian Edition 11 Mitra's legal and commercial dictionary 12 Parry and Co. Ltd. v. Perry and Co., 13 Judicial dictionary, 16th edition, K J Aiyar, LexisNexis
- 29 -
NC: 2024:KHC:16797 WP No. 57540 of 2014 9.3. In the notification issued by the Central Pollution Control Board, item No. 1503 reads as under:
CENTRAL POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD (Ministry of environment & forests Govt. of India) No.B-29012/ESS(CPA)/2015-16/ March 07, 2016 To The Chairman All the State Pollution Control Boards / Pollution Control Committees (List Attached) SUB: MODIFIED DIRECTIONS UNDER SECTION 18(1)(b) OF THE WATER (PREVENTION & CONTROL OF POLLUTION) ACT, 1974 and THE AIR (PREVENTION & CONTROL OF POLLUTION) ACT, 1981 REGARDING HARMONIZATION OF CLASSIFICATION OF INDUSTRIAL SECTORS UNDER RED/ORANGE/GREEN/WHITE CATEGORIES.
WHEREAS, under section 16 (2)(b) of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 and under Section 16 (2)(c) of the Air (Prevention & Control of Pollution) Act, 1981, one of the functions of the Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB), constituted under the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974, is to coordinate activities of the State Pollution Control Boards (SPCBs) and Pollution Control Committees (PCCs); and WHEREAS, under section 16 (2)(c) of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 and under Section 16 (2)(d) of the Air (Prevention & Control of Pollution) Act, 1981, one of the functions of the CPCB is to provide technical assistance and guidance to SPCBs and PCCs; and
- 30 -
NC: 2024:KHC:16797 WP No. 57540 of 2014 WHEREAS, it was brought to the notice of CPCB, that different SPCBs/PCCS were following different criteria for classification of industrial sectors under Red/Orange/Green category and that classification was being used by the SPCBs/PCCS for grant of consents to industries and for Inventorization / surveillance of industries WHEREAS, the issue regarding classification of industries was deliberated upon in the 56th Conference of Chairmen & Member Secretaries of CPCB & SPCBS/PCCs held on August 31, 2010 and a working group comprising of representatives from SPCBs & CPCB was constituted to prepare a consolidated list of industrial sectors falling under Red/Orange/Green category to bring uniformity in classification of industrial sectors across the country, WHEREAS, the report prepared by the Working Group was discussed in the 57th Conference of Chairmen & Member Secretaries of CPCB & SPCBs/PCCs held in Delhi un September 15, 2011, wherein some modifications were proposed, WHEREAS, the final report of the working group was prepared, incorporating the suggestions/observations made in the 57th Conference of Chairmen and Member Secretaries of CPCB & SPCBs/PCCs and in exercise of the powers delegated to the Chairman, CPCB under Section 18(1)(b) of the Water Act, 1974, following directions were issued for compliance to all SPCBs/PCCs to maintain uniformity in categorization of industries as red, orange and green as per list finalized by CPCB, which identified 85 types of industrial sectors as 'Red', 73 industrial sectors as 'Orange' and 86 sectors as 'Green':
a). To maintain uniformity in categorization of industries under Red/ Orange/Green category, the SPCBs/PCCs shall adopt the list as finalized by CPCB based on the recommendations of that Working Group for grant of Consent, inventorization of industries under Red, Orange and Green categories and other related activities
(b). The SPCBs/PCCs shall revise the list of Red, Orange and Green categories of industries operating in their jurisdiction based on the criteria specified in the final
- 31 -
NC: 2024:KHC:16797 WP No. 57540 of 2014 report of that Working Group and submit the same to CPCB within 90 days in hard cop as well as soft copy;
WHEREAS, later-on, it was observed that the process of categorization thus far was primarily based on the size of the industries and consumption of resources and pollution due to discharge of emissions and effluents and its likely impact on health was not considered as primary criteria, WHEREAS, there have been proposals from the SPCBs / PCCs and industrial associations for categorization of the industrial sectors in a more pragmatic manner. The issue was discussed during the national level conference of the Environment Ministers of the States, held in New Delhi during April 06-07, 2015 and also during the Conference of the Chairmen and Member Secretaries of CPCB and SPCBS/PCCs held in New Delhi on April 08, 2015. Accordingly, a "Working Group' comprising of the Members from Central Pollution Control Board and State Pollution Control Boards representing the States of Andhra Pradesh, Punjab, Tamilnadu, West Bengal, Madhya Pradesh and Maharashtra, was constituted to revisit the criteria of categorization of industries and suggest rationale based on pollution potential for categorization of industrial sectors and adopting it for implementation of pollution control plan;
WHEREAS, the Working Group has developed the criteria of categorization of industrial sectors based on the concept of Pollution Index which is a function of the emissions (air pollutants), effluents (water pollutants), hazardous wastes generated and consumption of resources. For this purpose the references are taken from the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Cess (Amendment) Act, 2001, Standards so far prescribed for various pollutants under Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 and Doon Valley Notification, and MoEFCC The Pollution Index (PI) of any industrial sector is a number from 0 to 100 and increasing value of Pl denotes the increasing degree of pollution load from the industrial sector.
- 32 -
NC: 2024:KHC:16797 WP No. 57540 of 2014 WHEREAS, based on the series of consultations with SPCBs, different Government/ government Institutions including industries and MoEFCC, the following criteria on 'Range of Pollution Index' for the purpose of categorization of industrial sectors has been finalized:
o Industrial Sectors having Pollution Index score of 60 and above - Red Category o Industrial Sectors having Pollution Index score of 41 to 59-Orange Category o Industrial Sectors having Pollution Index score of 21 to 40-Green Category o Industrial Sectors having Pollution Index score incl. & upto 20-White Category WHEREAS, based on the revised criteria, the 'Final Report on Revised Categorization of Industrial Sectors under Red/Orange/Green/White has been evolved. The 'Categorization' is based on the relative pollution potential of the industrial sector and grouping of the industrial sectors based on the use of raw materials, manufacturing process adopted and pollutants likely to be generated.
WHEREAS, based on relative Pollution Index, the number of industries in various categories are as under;
i. The Red category of industrial sectors: 60 ii. The Orange category of industrial sectors: 83 iii. The Green category of industrial sectors: 63 and iv. The Newly introduced White category: 36 WHEREAS, there shall be no necessity of obtaining the Consent to Operate" for White category of industries and an intimation to concerned SI'CB/PCC shall suffice, WHEREAS, the purpose of categorization is to ensure that the industry is established in a manner consistent with the environmental objectives and to prompt industrial sectors to adopt cleaner technologies, ultimately resulting in generation of no or minimum pollutants.
WHEREAS the new categorization system shall also facilitate in self-assessment by industries,
- 33 -
NC: 2024:KHC:16797 WP No. 57540 of 2014 Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers delegated to the Chairman, CPCB under Section 18(1)(b) of the Water (Prevention & Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 and Section 18(1)(b) of the Air (Prevention & Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 the earlier Directions issued in June 2012 in the context of categorization of industries as Red. Orange & Green are withdrawn with immediate effect and following "Directions are hereby issued for compliance by all SPCBs and PCCs:
1. That the SPCBs and PCCs shall adopt the Revised Criteria of categorization of industrial sectors as detailed in table nos. F1, F2, F3 and F4 and Revised Lists of Red, Orange, Green and White categories of industrial sectors, presented at table no G2, G3, G4 and G5 respectively, in the 'Final Report' as attached herewith immediately.
2. That all pending applications for consideration of 'Consent to Establish and 'Consent to Operate' and future such applications shall be processed as per revised criteria.
3. That the SPCBs and PCCs will provide the list of industries identified in each category existing in the State which have been considered for grant of consents. SPCBs/PCCs will forward the list of such industries before 31.05.2016 and the same will be uploaded on the websites of respective SPCB/PCC.
4. That the 'Revised Lists of Red, Orange, Green and White category of industrial sectors' shall be used by the SPCBs and PCCs for Consent Management and inventorization of industries under Red, Orange, Green and White categories.
Siting of industries shall be only in conforming areas. SPCBs / PCCs shall evolve sector specific plans for control of pollution and industrial surveillance for verifying compliance.
5. That the SPCBs and PCCs shall revise/prepare the inventory of Red, Orange, Green and White categories of industries operating in their jurisdiction based on the revised criteria specified in the Final Report and submit the same to CPCB within 90 days i.e., before 30.05.2016 in hard copy as well as soft copy
6. That the listed category of industries or those identified later-on under different categories shall not be linked to sanction of loan/finance or bank proceedings
7. That any further addition of any new or left-over industrial sector and their categorization which is not listed in the
- 34 -
NC: 2024:KHC:16797 WP No. 57540 of 2014 revised list of Red, Orange, Green and White industrial sectors, shall be done at the level of concerned SPCB /PCC following revised criteria & guidelines as detailed in the attached document and no concurrence of CPCB shall normally be required It is further clarified that while categorizing the industries, fractional numbers shall be rounded off to nearest integer.
The SPCBs/PCCs shall acknowledge the receipt of directions and submit the 'Action Taken Report' in compliance with these directions to CPCB before 15.02.2016. 9.4. In the said notification there is no other item which specifically relates to manufacture of banana chips. Thus, it is only the entry relating to bakery and confectionery which can be said to apply to manufacture of banana chips. Banana chips being an edible product, produced by a mechanical process would in my considered opinion come within the meaning and preview of manufacture. The term manufacture is defined under various law lexicon/ dictionaries as under:
14
MANUFACTURE, v. From Latin words manus and factura, literally, put together by hand. Now it means the process of making products by hand or machinery.15
MANUFACTURE, the process of producing goods 14 Black's law dictionary
- 35 -
NC: 2024:KHC:16797 WP No. 57540 of 2014 9.5. When large quantities of banana chips in the present case 700 kilos according to respondent No.2 and more than 1000 kilos (1 tone) as per the KSPCB report and according to the petitioner much more and admittedly respondent No.2 being in the business of manufacture and sale of banana chips amounting to an industry would come within definition of bakery and Confectionery as per item No. 1503 of the list. Hence, I answer point No.1 by holding that the industry of manufacture of banana chips would come within the purview of Bakery/ confectionery in the notification no KSPCB/798/COC/2016-17/1425 dated 15.06.2016.
10. Answer to point No.2: In the present case, is the industry operated by respondent No.2 a green industry that does not require consent for establishment or consent for operation from the KSPCB?
15 Cambridge dictionary
- 36 -
NC: 2024:KHC:16797 WP No. 57540 of 2014 10.1. In Table G-4, Sl.No.3 of the notification published on 15.6.2016, which is reproduced hereunder for easy reference:
bakery/confectionery/sweets products (with production capacity < 1tpd (with gas or electrical oven) 10.2. The notification issued under Section 18(1)(b) Water Act, the Air act regarding organisation of classification of industrial sectors under Red, Orange, Green and White categories deal with a classification of such industries.
10.3. For the purpose of establishment of green industry or industries classified on the basis of permission required from the respective Pollution Control Board. The Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB) vide notification No.B-
29012/ESS(CPA)/2015-16 dated 7.3.2016 observing that under Section 2(b) of the Water Act and Section 2(c) of the Air Act, one of the function of the CPCB is to coordinate the activities
- 37 -
NC: 2024:KHC:16797 WP No. 57540 of 2014 of the State Pollution Control Board and Pollution Control Committees and taking into consideration that different SPCB/CPCB were following different criteria for classification of industries under red/orange/green category for the purpose of grant of concerns to industries and surveillance thereof.
10.4. This aspect having been deliberated upon in the 56th Conference of Chairman's and members Secretaries of CPCB and SPCB/PCC held on 31.8.2010 a working group was constituted to prepare consolidated list in furtherance of which such consolidated list was prepared and approved in the 57th Conference. So has to maintain uniformity in categorization and it is this revised criterion which was directed to be applied to and taken into consideration by the Pollution Control Board, irrespective SPCB and CPCB. The criteria for the same having been approved, the harmonization of classification of industrial sectors
- 38 -
NC: 2024:KHC:16797 WP No. 57540 of 2014 under Red, Orange, Green, White categories was also approved.
10.5. Insofar as bakery/confectionary/sweet products with production capacity of less than one ton per day with gas/electric oven the same comes under table G-4 at Sl.No.3 observing that there are small quantities of wastewater from washing operations.
10.6. The contention of the learned counsel for Pollution Control Board is that it is only under this category that the industry of respondent No.2 would fall under provided gas/electric oven is used. If either the capacity is more than one ton per day or gas or electric oven are not used it would not come under the Category-3 of table G-4 but would come in table G-3 of Sl.No.2 which relates to bakery/ confectionary units with production capacity of grater than one ton per day with oven/ furnace. Table G-3 dealing with orange category
- 39 -
NC: 2024:KHC:16797 WP No. 57540 of 2014 consent for establishment as also consent for operation is required to be obtained. 10.7. It is further pointed out that since respondent No.2 is involved in coffee seed processing, the same would come under the Sl.No.78 of table G-3 relating to orange industry which should also require consent for establishment and consent for operation.
10.8. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 has submitted that since biomass is used which has been promoted by the authorities' insistence of gas or electric oven is not proper and therefore whether it is gas or electric oven which is used or biomass which is used the industry of respondent No.2 would come under Category-3. This without prejudice to the contention that banana chips is not a confectionery item this aspect of banana chips being a confectionery item or not has been dealt with above in answer to point No.1.
- 40 -
NC: 2024:KHC:16797 WP No. 57540 of 2014 10.9. In view of the harmonization of the category into Red, Green, White, Orange etc., it is now clear that the banana chips industry which is using a furnace or oven like that done by respondent No.2 and the fuel being used as biomass namely, coffee husk and cashew nut husk it has to be classified as orange industry requiring consent for establishment as also consent for operation. That apart, coffee seed processing coming under Sl.No.78 of table G-3 would also require such consents.
10.10. Hence, I answer point No.2 by holding that in the present case the industry operated by the respondent No.2 i.e., manufacturing of banana chips and processing of coffee seeds coming under Table G-3 relating to orange industries necessary procedure relating to orange industries is required to be complied with, one of them being obtaining consent for establishment as also consent for operation from the KSPCB.
- 41 -
NC: 2024:KHC:16797 WP No. 57540 of 2014
11. Answer to point No.3: Whether the test being conducted by KSPCB on complaint received from the petitioner can be said to be bad in law?
11.1. The contention of learned counsel for respondent No.2 is that test has been conducted at the behest of the petitioner and therefore it is not an independent test. In my considered opinion, it is not on the basis of whose behest the test was conducted but who conducted the test which is important. The KSPCB being an independent organization unless any motives or malafides are alleged than the test conducted by the KSPCB would have to be accepted.
11.2. The respondent No.2 having produced a private report has called upon this Court to accept a private report commissioned by respondent No.2, that in my considered opinion would not be permissible. The KSPCB being an independent government entity having
- 42 -
NC: 2024:KHC:16797 WP No. 57540 of 2014 conducted the test on a compliant received from the petitioner the lab test, got conducted from accredited labs by KSPCB cannot be faulted with.
11.3. The KSPCB is an independent entity and in charge of maintaining a pollution free environment in the State of Karnataka for that purpose, the KSPCB has various laboratories set up by itself as also it has arrangements with certain other laboratories, which arrangement would be taken into consideration for purpose of carrying out an analysis of the tests in a particular industry or area.
11.4. The submission of Sri.Gururaj Joshi., learned counsel appearing for the KSPCB is also that whenever any complaint is received by KSPCB, the personnel of KSPCB would visit the concerned location, carry out necessary tests, send it to the concerned laboratory for analysis and on the basis of the result obtained take
- 43 -
NC: 2024:KHC:16797 WP No. 57540 of 2014 necessary action, this again is a system which is flawed at the root. The monitoring of pollution cannot only be on the basis of a complaint filed, KSPCB being in charge of monitoring pollution would have to establish a system of continuously monitoring the pollution. No purpose would be served, if samples are collected after advance notice which could result in the offending party not resorting to such manufacturing purposes or the like during that period.
11.5. In the present case, the contention of learned Senior counsel for the petitioner is also on similar lines to state that when the officers of the Pollution Control Board visited the property of Respondent No.2, the respondent No.2 stopped using biomass as fuel and it also cleaned up the place. This kind and methodology which could be adopted by an offender insofar as a situation where there is an
- 44 -
NC: 2024:KHC:16797 WP No. 57540 of 2014 allegation made of violation of pollution laws would not be of any help to anyone, including the Pollution Control Board.
11.6. The Pollution Control Board would have to come up with a proper system of administering the Air Act and Water Act so as to make available a pollution free environment to the citizens of the country.
11.7. This could be done by adopting two methodologies, one as regards units which have taken permission or consent for establishment and consent for operation from the Pollution Control Board, the other where no such permission has been taken or required to be taken.
11.8. Insofar as industries which have taken permission or consent one of the terms of the consent could be installation of appropriate machinery to evaluate the nature of pollution, quantum of pollution caused and to identify, if
- 45 -
NC: 2024:KHC:16797 WP No. 57540 of 2014 the same is within the permissible limits or not. Many of the equipment, not costing too much, the cost of the equipment would also have to be borne by the project proponent or the owner of the industry and necessary reports would have to be shared with the Pollution Control Board on a real time basis with the same being uploaded to the designated database of the the Pollution Control Board.
11.9. It would also be preferable that these particular machineries use the technology of Internet of Things (IOT) which are now used in white goods like, refrigerator, ovens, air conditioners etc., and the reports are in real time directly sent to the Pollution Control Board for necessary action without human intervention. 11.10. Insofar as situation which arise where there is no permission which has been taken, Sri.Gururaj Joshi., learned counsel appearing for the KSPCB submitted that automatic
- 46 -
NC: 2024:KHC:16797 WP No. 57540 of 2014 continuous monitoring system has been set up at a few places, in Bangalore they have been set up at 11 locations which are completely automatic and there are 15 locations where manual stations have been set up.
11.11. On inquiry as to whether a similar kind of a systems have been set up in different cities across the State of Karnataka, he submits that in a few cities automatic systems have been set up and few cities manual systems have been set up. On further inquiry as to whether such systems have been set up in all industrial areas, he very fairly submits that they have not been so set up, due to the costs required to be incurred.
11.12. Today, in the age of global warming and climatic change affecting the human populace cost cannot be a factor which can come in the way of the KSPCB or the State setting up preventive measures and/or setting up
- 47 -
NC: 2024:KHC:16797 WP No. 57540 of 2014 automatic analysis units so has to take action in the event of such action being necessary. Right to a pollution free environments is also a part of the fundamental right to life guaranteed under Article 21 of the constitution of India. A citizen of the country cannot be made to live in a polluted environment causing such a citizen to suffer from diseases which arise on account of pollution.
11.13. Automatic and continuous monitoring stations are required to be set up in factories coming under the red and orange category at the cost of the owner of the factory, imposing such a condition at the time when consent for establishment is issued, ascertaining if the said monitoring system has been established before consent for operation is issued. This automatic continuous monitoring system/unit could also cater to measuring the pollutants in the air and water in the surrounding areas.
- 48 -
NC: 2024:KHC:16797 WP No. 57540 of 2014 11.14. It would but be required for the KSPCB to install Automatic Continuous Ambient Air Quality Monitoring Systems in as many locations as possible more particularly in industrial areas, densely populated areas and areas where industries are being run in terms of permissible zonal regulations. These test reports could form the basis for KSPCB in taking necessary action against the offenders. 11.15. The amounts received by the KSPCB by applying the principle of polluters pay could also be used for bearing the capital as also revenue expenses in respect of such equipment.
11.16. The Chairman, Pollution Control Board, Karnataka State Pollution Board would be required to look into this matter and submit a detailed project report within 6 weeks taking into consideration the above observations as also any other factor deemed relevant by the
- 49 -
NC: 2024:KHC:16797 WP No. 57540 of 2014 Chairman. The said report to envisage the implementation of Automatic Continuous Ambient Air Quality Monitoring Systems across the State of Karnataka.
11.17. Be that as it may, in the present case considering that the samples were collected by officers of the Karnataka State Pollution Board sent to an accredited laboratory, the reports cannot be said to be at the behest of the petitioner, KSPCB being a statutory independent authority set up for the purpose of ensuring that there is no pollution caused, a report submitted by KSPCB will have a presumptive value of accuracy subject to rebuttal if any.
12. Answer to point No.4. Could respondent No.2 be permitted to continue his business of manufacturing banana chips?
12.1. In view of my answers to point Nos.1 and 2, the manufacture being made by respondent No.2 of banana chip which is a confectionery by
- 50 -
NC: 2024:KHC:16797 WP No. 57540 of 2014 using biomass/furnace which comes under Category-G3 i.e., orange category. Respondent No.2 also running a manufacturing unit dealing with processing of coffee seeds which also comes under Category-G3 relating to orange industries it was but required for respondent No.2 to have obtained consent for establishment and consent for operation from the Karnataka Pollution Control Board, not having done so by respondent No.2 despite the said industry not being a green industry, respondent No.2 cannot be further permitted to continue the business of manufacturing of banana chips and/or processing of coffee seeds without such permission. Hence, respondent No.2 would have to be restrained from doing so.
12.2. Hence, I answer point No.4 by holding that respondent No.2 cannot be permitted to
- 51 -
NC: 2024:KHC:16797 WP No. 57540 of 2014 continue his business or manufacturer banana chips.
13. Answer to point No.5. Whether the action or inaction on the part of Municipalities and KSPCB is proper and correct?
13.1. There is a requirement to maintain a pollution free environment. In the present case, the Municipality has blamed the KSPCB, contending that KSPCB has to take action the Municipality not having the wherewithal. The KSPCB contending that the local authority i.e., the Municipality would have to take action.
13.2. I am unable to agree with both submissions. Both the authorities are required to take action. Whenever there is any violation of law, in this case, there being pollution caused beyond permissible limits.
13.3. The contention of the Municipality is that insofar as Sringeri is concerned, there is no zonal regulation demarcating residential, industrial, commercial zones any such activity can be carried
- 52 -
NC: 2024:KHC:16797 WP No. 57540 of 2014 out anywhere in Sringeri. Thus, the Municipality has only issued a trade licence to respondent No.2, apart therefrom the Municipality has nothing to do with the matter.
13.4. The KSPCB contents that respondent No.2 has not approached KSPCB for any permission, KSPCB not having issued either a consent for establishment or consent for operation. The Municipality having issued trade licence, it is for the Municipality to take necessary action. This contention on part of the KSPCB is also completely fallacious and in my considered opinion would amount to abdication of duties by the KSPCB. The KSPCB is established for and is responsible for maintaining and ensuring a pollution free environment in the whole of Karnataka vide Notification No.DEE 5 ECO 87 dated 30.5.1988 issued an Exercise of powers under Sub-section (1) of Section 20 of the Air (Prevention & Control of Pollution) Act 1981. The Government of Karnataka after consultation with
- 53 -
NC: 2024:KHC:16797 WP No. 57540 of 2014 Karnataka State Pollution Control Board has declared the whole of the State to be an Air Pollution Control area for the purpose of said Act. The said notification reads as under:
Ecology and Environment Secretariat Notification No.DEE 5 ECO 87, Bangalore, dated 30th May 1988 In exercise of the power conferred by sub- section (1) of Section 19 of Air (Prevention and Contral of Pollution) Act, 1981 (Central Act 14 of 1981) and in supersession of the Notification No. DEE 105 ENV 83 dated 28th January 184, the Government of Karnataka, after consultation with the Karnataka State Pollution Control Board hereby declared that whole of State shall be "Air Pollution Control Area" for the purposes of the said Act.
13.5. Such a notification having been issued in consultation with KSPCB, the jurisdiction of the KSPCB extends to the whole of Karnataka irrespective of whether there is a Municipality, Corporation, Mandal Panchayat, Zilla Panchayat etc., having local jurisdiction. The jurisdiction of
- 54 -
NC: 2024:KHC:16797 WP No. 57540 of 2014 KSPCB in so far as pollution is concerned transcends beyond all local limits or jurisdiction of local authorities or Municipalities, irrespective of where a polluter is located, and irrespective of under whose jurisdiction the polluter comes under, it is for the KSPCB to take action not doing so as indicated earlier would be an abdication of the duties of the KSPCB.
13.6. The KSPCB having appointed officers across the State, designated as environmental officer or otherwise such officers are duty bound to cause inspections, conduct periodical visits to the local area and obtain intelligence as regards any pollution being caused within the jurisdiction and take necessary and immediate action as regards such pollution.
13.7. The KSPCB cannot in my considered opinion entertain or take up the contention that it is for the local authority to take action against the polluter not for KSPCB.
- 55 -
NC: 2024:KHC:16797 WP No. 57540 of 2014 13.8. Insofar as a Municipality is concerned the contention of the municipality is that there is no zonal regulation applicable to Sringeri which is the situation in most other tier 2 and tier 3 cities and as such even in residential areas, industrial activity or manufacturing activity can be go on, in my considered this position is required to undergo a change. There needs to be an orderly development of every city in the State of Karnataka and residents of each such city are required to be provided a pollution free environment and in this regards it would be for the Director of Municipal Administration and the Urban Development Department to properly and effectively take steps to segregate residential, commercial and industrial areas in each city. It would be required for planning authorities to be appointed and such planning authorities to take into account all relevant factors for the above.
- 56 -
NC: 2024:KHC:16797 WP No. 57540 of 2014 13.9. The Principal Secretary, Urban Development Department is directed look into the matter and submit a report as to in what manner the Urban Development Department purposes to achieve the above within a period of 6 weeks from today. 13.10. In the above background, I answer point No.5 by holding that both offices of the municipality and KSPCB have abdicated their duties not having taken any action against the polluter causing tremendous harm and inconvenience to the petitioner and his all family which cannot be countenance either in fact or law.
14. Answer to point No.6: GENERAL DIRECTION.
14.1. The Chairman KSPCB is directed to issue necessary instructions to all the officers coming under KSPCB to ensure that there is no pollution which is caused and even if there is pollution it is within permissible limits.
14.2. To file a report containing the modalities that the KSPCB intends to follow in establishment of
- 57 -
NC: 2024:KHC:16797 WP No. 57540 of 2014 continuous ambient air and water monitoring system in each industrial area. If required in each factory coming under the red category. 14.3. The Principal Secretary, Urban Development Department is directed to place on record his recommendations and the methodology to ensure that there is proper zonal classification made in each of the city/towns across the State of Karnataka so has to segregate the residential from industrial and commercial areas. 14.4. Proper training to be given to the concerned authorities/officers coming under the municipality to on inspection ascertain, if there is any pollution and if there is any pollution refer the matter to the concerned officer of the KSPCB. 14.5. Report of the Principal secretary, Urban Development Department and Chairman Pollution Control Board to be placed within a period of 6 weeks from today.
- 58 -
NC: 2024:KHC:16797 WP No. 57540 of 2014
15. Answer to point No.7: What order? In view of the above discussion, I pass the following:
ORDER i. The writ petition is allowed.
ii. Respondents No.3 to 6 are directed to ensure that the manufacturing activities of respondent No.2 are not carried on without obtaining necessary consent for establishment and consent for operation as per the applicable rules, since the said activity comes under category G3-Orange category.
iii. Though the above matter is disposed, re-
list on 25.06.2024 for reporting compliance with the above directions.
Sd/-
JUDGE SR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 23