Karnataka High Court
Ullal Fish Meal And Oil Company vs Karnataka State Pollution on 18 August, 2022
Author: Alok Aradhe
Bench: Alok Aradhe
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF AUGUST 2022
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. ALOK ARADHE
ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE ANIL B. KATTI
W.P. NO.16165 OF 2022 (GM-POL)
BETWEEN:
ULLAL FISH MEAL AND OIL COMPANY
HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT
DOOR NO.1-19/1, SEA ROAD
KOTEPURAL ULLAL
MANGALURU
REP BY ITS PARTNER
MR. MOHAMMAD ARIF
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS
S/O K. ABDUL RAZAK.
... PETITIONER
(BY MR. UDAYA HOLLA, SR. COUNSEL FOR
MR. ABHIMANYU ARJUN, ADV.,)
AND:
1. KARNATAKA STATE POLLUTION
CONTROL BOARD
REP. BY CHAIRMAN
HAVING ITS OFFICE AT
PARISAR BHAVAN
NO.33, CHURCH STREET
SHANTHALA NAGAR
BENGALURU 560001.
2
2. THE SENIOR ENVIRORNMENTAL OFFICER
PARISARA BHAVAN
BLOCK NO.23 AND 24
Ist FLOOR, 4th CROSS
NEAR ESI HOSPITAL
KIADB AREA
MANGALORE 575 001.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY MR. DHYAN CHINNAPPA, SR. COUNSEL FOR
MR. A. MAHESH CHOWDHARY, ADV., FOR C/R1)
---
THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 AND 227 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT
OF CERTIORARI OR ANY DIRECTION TO QUASH OR SET
ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 05.08.2022 BEARING
No-PCB/SEO/NEIA-OB/1490/CLOSURE ORDER WA/2022-
23/107 ISSUED UNDER SECTION 33A OF WATER
(PREVENTION AND CONTROL OF POLLUTION) ACT, 1974
READ WITH RULE 34 OF THE KARNATAKA STATE BOARD
FOR THE PREVENTION AND CONTROL OF WATER
POLLUTION (PROCEDURE FOR TRANSACTION OF BUSINESS)
AND THE WATER (PREVENTION AND CONTROL OF
POLLUTION) RULES, 1997 (ANNEXURE-A). ISSUE AWRIT OF
CERTIORARI OR ANY DIRECTION TO QUASH OR SET ASIDE
THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 05.08.2022 BEARING No-
PCB/SEO/NEIA-OB/1490/CLOSURE ORDER-AA.2022-
23/108 ISSUED UNDER SECTION 31A OF AIR (PREVENTION
AND CONTROL OF POLLUTION) ACT, 1981 READ WITH RULE
20(A) OF THE KARNATAKA AIR (PREVENTION AND CONTROL
OF POLLUTION) RULES, 1983 (ANNEXURE-B) & ETC.,
THIS W.P. COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING,
THIS DAY, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE, MADE THE FOLLOWING:
3
ORDER
The petitioner is a Company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 and is operating a factory for production of fish meal, fish oil and fish soluble paste which is located at Kotepura, Ullal, Mangalore Taluk. The Karnataka State Pollution Control Board (hereinafter referred to as the Board, for short) is a statutory body constituted with an object to control of pollution in the State of Karnataka. In this writ petition, the petitioner seeks a writ of certiorari for quashing of orders dated 05.08.2022 issued under Section 33A of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Water Act' for short) and under Section 31A of the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Air Act' for short).
2. Facts giving rise to filing of this petition briefly stated are that an inspection of the premises of the 4 petitioner was conducted by the Chairman and Officers of the Board on 07.04.2022. During the course of the inspection, certain deficiencies were found. Thereupon, the Environmental Officer of the Board issued a notice dated 29.04.2022 asking the petitioner to submit point wise compliance report failing which the petitioner was informed that action shall be taken under the Water Act and the Air Act.
3. The petitioner submitted a reply dated 09.05.2022 to the aforesaid notice. The said reply was submitted in the office of the Environmental Officer on 16.05.2022. However, on 16.05.2022 itself, the notice for proposed directions under Section 33 of the Water Act was issued to the petitioner, who submitted a reply to the aforesaid directions on 24.05.2022. Thereafter, a notice dated 29.06.2022 was issued to petitioner by which it was asked to appear before the Chairman of the Board on 5 12.07.2022. The petitioner attended the aforesaid hearing. Thereafter, the impugned order dated 05.08.2022 was passed under the Water Act by which the petitioner was asked to close down the operation of the industry. Similarly, an order on 05.08.2022 under the Air Act was passed. In the aforesaid factual background, this petition has been filed.
4. Learned Senior counsel for the petitioner submitted that in the impugned orders it is stated ttat the petitioner has failed to submit reply to the show cause notice which is factually incorrect. It is also urged that reasons assigned for closure of industry run by the petitioner are different from the grounds mentioned in the show cause notice issued to the petitioner. It is therefore urged that the impugned orders are not vague but have been passed in violation of principles of natural justice. It is also contended that doctrine of proportionality is applicable even in 6 environmental matters. In support of aforesaid submission, reliance has been placed on the decisions of the Supreme Court in 'UNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER Vs. BROJENDRA NATH TIWARI AND ORS.' (1971) 3 SCC 788 and decision of this Court in 'NOOLI CHANNAYYA SMARAKA Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA & ORS.' ILR 2004 KAR 4133.
5. On the other hand, learned Senior counsel for the Board, while inviting the attention of this Court, to the minutes of meeting of the hearing, has pointed out that the President of the Association of Industries had agreed in the hearing that there are 100% violations on the part of fish meal industries and therefore, on admitted facts, orders under Section 33A of Water Act and Section 31A of the Air Act have been passed. It is submitted that intention of the Board is not to close down the industry but to ensure adherence to provisions of the Water Act and the Air Act. 7
6. We have considered the submissions made on both sides and have perused the record. It is well settled in law that if an order is beyond the scope of show cause notice or travels beyond the bounds of notice, the same is violative of principles of natural justice. In other words, an order can be passed only on the grounds mentioned in the show cause notice and not on additional grounds. (See: 'UMC TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED Vs. FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER' (2021) 2 SCC 551). In case an order is passed without considering the reply submitted by a party, the same will also be violative of principles of natural justice.
7. In the instant case, the petitioner had submitted a reply to the show cause notice dated 29.04.2022, on 16.05.2022. However, on 16.05.2022, notice of proposed direction was issued to the 8 petitioner to which the petitioner submitted a reply on 29.06.2022. However, the impugned orders state that no reply to the show cause notice is filed. The petitioner had filed replies to show cause notice dated 29.04.2022 and notice of proposed direction dated 16.05.2022. However, the replies filed by the petitioner has not been taken into consideration. The statement made by the President of the Association of the Industries during the course of hearing cannot bind the other petitioners.
8. Therefore, in the peculiar facts of the case, we direct that orders dated 05.08.2022 passed under the Water Act and the Air Act shall be treated as show cause notices. The petitioner is granted one week's time to file additional reply, if so advised. The Board shall consider the reply which may be filed on behalf 9 of the petitioner and shall proceed to pass afresh order in accordance with law.
Accordingly, the petition is disposed of.
Sd/-
ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE Sd/-
JUDGE RV