Karnataka High Court
M/S Smlp Concrete Private Limited vs The State Of Karnataka on 14 November, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:46630-DB
WP No. 32914 of 2025
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA
WRIT PETITION NO. 32914 OF 2025 (GM-POL)
BETWEEN:
M/S SMLP CONCRETE PRIVATE LIMITED
A COMPANY REGISTERED UNDER
COMPANIES ACT, 2013
HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT
NO.32, SHETTERAHALLI VILLAGE,
KASABA HOBLI,
DEVANAHALLI TALUK,
BANGALORE RURAL - 562 110
REPRESENTED BY ITS
MANAGING DIRECTOR
SRI. B.B. UMESHA
...PETITIONER
Digitally (BY SRI. PRASHANTH KUMAR D., ADVOCATE)
signed by
NIRMALA
DEVI AND:
Location:
HIGH COURT 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
OF DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT,
KARNATAKA BANGALORE- 560 001
MS BUILDING,
DR. B.R AMBEDKAR VEEDHI
REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY.
2. KARNATAKA STATE POLLUTION
CONTROL BOARD,
PARISARA BHAVAN, 1 TO 5 FLOORS,
NO.49, CHURCH STREET,
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:46630-DB
WP No. 32914 of 2025
HC-KAR
BANGALORE - 560 001
REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. NILOUFER AKBAR, AGA FOR R1;
SRI. A MAHESH CHOWDHARY., ADVOCATE FOR R2)
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF
CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT, ORDER,
OR DIRECTION QUASHING THE ORDER DATED 02/09/2025
FOR CLOSURE DIRECTIONS ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT
NO.2 UNDER SECTION 33(A) OF THE WATER (PREVENTION
AND CONTROL OF POLLUTION) ACT, 1974, READ WITH RULE
34 OF KARNATAKA STATE BOARD FOR PREVENTION AND
CONTROL OF WATER POLLUTION (PROCEDURE FOR
TRANSACTION OF BUSINESS) AND WATER (PREVENTION
AND CONTROL OF POLLUTION) RULES, 1976 (ANNEXURE-A)
AND ETC.,
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE
and
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA
ORAL ORDER
(PER: HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE)
1. The petitioner has filed the present petition being aggrieved by the closure notices issued by the Karnataka State Pollution Control Board, Bengaluru [hereafter 'KSPCB'].
2. The petitioner is engaged in the business of manufacturing, pre-cast bricks, curbs, paver and operating concrete mixer and -3- NC: 2025:KHC:46630-DB WP No. 32914 of 2025 HC-KAR allied activities. The petitioner claims that it is engaged by various Government Authorities and entities, including the Bruhath Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike, for supplying material for construction of roads, public utilities and for other development activities.
3. The petitioner had obtained a Consent For Establishment [CFE] on 07.12.2020 from KSPCB under the relevant statutes and also the consent for operation [CFO] and discharge of effluents on 04.01.2021. Petitioner states that it had spent a considerable amount of money - Rs.5 crores - for construction of the concrete mixer plant spreading over an area of 1 acre and 16 guntas of land, which was leased by the petitioner.
4. Complaints were made by the residents in the locality alleging discharge of polluted water. It was also alleged that the noise pollution generated by the petitioner's unit exceeded the specified permissible limits. The impugned orders indicate that the petitioner was issued with a show cause notice on 21.11.2022, 16.03.2024 and 31.08.2024. In addition, a show cause notice dated 28.04.2025 was also issued calling upon the petitioner to show cause as to why the direction, as issued by the impugned order, -4- NC: 2025:KHC:46630-DB WP No. 32914 of 2025 HC-KAR not be passed. It is noted that the petitioner did not respond to the earlier show cause notices. However, it submitted a response, styled as response to the directions dated 07.07.2025 issued in the hearing held on 01.07.2025.
5. We consider it apposite to set out the non-compliances as stated in the show cause notice dated 16.03.2024. The same are reproduced below:
1.The RMC plant was in operation and engaged in ready-
mix concrete at the time of inspection without compliance to the conditions stipulated in CFO.
2. Consent has been granted by the Board vide ref (1) along with condition that "To provide water sprinkling arrangement to suppress the dust generation". But, during inspection it was observed that you have not provided permanent water sprinkling facility to minimize emission of dust during movement of vehicles and loading& unloading of raw materials, which shows that you are violating consent conditions.
3. Lot of fine dust from the RMC plant operation and vehicle movements during the loading and uploading of material deposited in and around the residential houses residents at Sy.72 & 73 which are adjacent to the RMC plant.
4. You have installed DG set of capacity 200 KVA with inadequate chimney height.
5. The RMC plant is situated adjacent to the residential layout and vehicle movement in and around the plant are leading to the generation of lot of dust and same is causing nuisance to adjacent residential layout. -5-
NC: 2025:KHC:46630-DB WP No. 32914 of 2025 HC-KAR
6. Lot of dust was being noticed at the time of vehicle transit within the RMC plant due to improper water sprinkling arrangements inside the RMC plant.
7. You have not provided the compound wall all around the unit and neflon mesh/zinc sheet of height 12 feet above the compound wall in order to control the dust blown out from the said activity, which is giving way to flow of dust from RMC operation area to surrounding environment and to neighbors.
8. You have provided wind breaking wall only one side (Entrance) and not all around your unit.
9. Not provided complete concrete road inside the unit and concrete spillage was observed on the ground inside your premises.
10. Lot of settled sludge is stored inside the premises and not maintained Log book pertaining to disposal of settled sludge.
11. You have not provided proper settling tank for handling of waste generated during Washing of transit mixer and over washing water is discharging outside plant premises.
12. Sufficient plantation is not provided across the RMC plant boundary in order to Mitigate fugitive emission.
13. As per the CFO condition, you are not submitting Ambient Air Quality Monitoring Report/Noise monitoring report to the Board regularly.
14. The solid waste generated from the operation is not being disposed off scientifically and same is causing lot of fugitive emission inside the plant premises.
15. As per the CFO conditions, you have not submitted Environment Statement in the Form-V for the previous year. -6-
NC: 2025:KHC:46630-DB WP No. 32914 of 2025 HC-KAR
16. As per the CFO conditions, you have been informed to submit the land conversion copy. But, the same is not furnished till date.
6. There is no dispute that the show cause notices set out the conditions, which were necessary to be complied with for carrying on operations. It is also relevant to note that KSPCB has stated that it has been receiving continuous complaints through WhatsApp and phone regarding air pollution from the operation of the RMC plant, being operated by the petitioner.
7. Pursuant to the aforementioned show cause notices personal hearing was afforded to the petitioner on 26.05.2025. [It is incorrectly referred to as 01.07.2025 in the response furnished by the petitioner on 07.07.2025]. During the course of proceedings held on 26.05.2025, same issues were once again highlighted. The non-compliances as specifically mentioned during the course of proceedings are set out below:
1. The RMC plant was in operation and engaged in ready mix concrete at the time of inspection without compliance to the conditions stipulated in the CFO.
2. Consent has been granted by Board along with the condition to provide water sprinkling arrangement to suppress the dust generation. However I/A's have not provided permanent water sprinkling facility to minimize emission of dust during movement of vehicles, loading & -7- NC: 2025:KHC:46630-DB WP No. 32914 of 2025 HC-KAR unloading of raw material which shows violation of consent conditions.
3. Lot of fine dust from RMC plant operation and vehicle movements during the loading & uploading of material deposited in and around the residential houses in residents at Sy.No.72 & 73 which are adjacent to the RMC plant was observed.
4. The unit has installed DG set of capacity 200 KVA with inadequate chimney height.
5. The RMC plant located adjacent to the residential layout & vehicle movement in and around the plant are leading to the generation of lot of dust and same is causing nuisance to adjacent residential layout.
6. Lot of dust was being noticed at the time of vehicle transit within the RMC plant due to improper water sprinkling arrangements inside the RMC plant.
7. The unit has not provided the compound wall all around the unit and neflon mesh/zinc sheet of height 12 feet above the compound wall in order to control the dust blown out from the said activity, which is giving way to flow of dust from RMC operation area to surrounding environment and to neighbors.
8. The unit has not provided wind breaking wall all around the unit.
9. Not provided concrete road inside the unit and RMC spillage was observed on the ground inside the premises.
10. Lot of settled sludge is stored inside the premises and not maintained log book pertaining to disposal of settled sludge.
11. Not provided proper settling tank for handling of waste generated during washing of transit mixer and wash water is discharged outside plant premises.-8-
NC: 2025:KHC:46630-DB WP No. 32914 of 2025 HC-KAR
12. Sufficient plantation is not provided all along the RMC plant boundary in order to mitigate fugitive emission.
13. The solid waste generated from operation is not being disposed off scientifically & the same is causing lot of fugitive emission inside the plant premises.
14. Not submitted environmental audit statement - Form- V for the previous year.
15. Not submitted the land conversion copy till date.
8. Subsequent to the proceedings held on 26.05.2025, the petitioner submitted a response (referred as response to the directions dated 01.07.2025), inter alia, stating that it had upgraded the existing roads to concrete both insides and outside and had also installed water sprinklers. Additionally it had provided sufficient height of three metres to the chimney to the DG set along with proper structure. The petitioner also stated that it has compounded the entire unit with sheets over and above the compound wall. It also stated that no vehicles enter their plant with any sludge or waste and therefore, they never clean or wash any vehicles. The petitioner also annexed photographs with the said reply. The same indicates a number of vehicles parked inside the premises. The photographs do not indicate that an extensive sprinkler system has been installed over areas where material is -9- NC: 2025:KHC:46630-DB WP No. 32914 of 2025 HC-KAR kept. On the contrary, two of photographs show persons sprinkling water from a hand held flexible pipe. A sprinkler system has apparently been installed inside a relatively small shed, which contains only a fraction of the material water stored at the location.
9. It is the petitioner's case that KSPCB has not considered its response. However, there is nothing on record that the petitioner has responded to the number of show cause notices which were issued. As noted above, it merely furnished a response on 07.07.2025 [to the proceedings held on 26.05.2025]. Although the said response states that it is a response to the directions issued on 01.7.2025, learned counsel for the petitioner concedes that there were no such directions and the said response refers to the proceedings held on 26.05.2025.
10. In view of the above, we are unable to accept that the impugned order warrants any interference by this Court. Having stated the above, we grant liberty to the petitioner to file a comprehensive response to all the allegations set out in the notices and to substantiate the same with adequate material. Needless to state, KSPCB shall examine the same and if necessary, the officials of KSPCB shall conduct an inspection to satisfy
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC:46630-DB WP No. 32914 of 2025 HC-KAR themselves that all the deficiencies as pointed out are duly addressed. If KSPCB is satisfied with the measures taken by the petitioner, it would revoke the closure orders. However, till KSPCB is so satisfied and passes orders revoking the closure orders, the closure orders will continue to operate.
11. Petition is disposed of with the above terms.
Sd/-
(VIBHU BAKHRU) CHIEF JUSTICE Sd/-
(C.M. POONACHA) JUDGE BS - List No.: 2 Sl No.: 5