Karnataka High Court
Dr. Shanth Averahaly Thimmaiah vs The State Of Karnataka on 4 January, 2024
Bench: Chief Justice, Krishna S Dixit
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:440-DB
WP No. 29133 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2024
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR PRASANNA B. VARALE, CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE KRISHNA S DIXIT
WRIT PETITION NO. 29133 OF 2023 (GM-POL)
BETWEEN:
DR. SHANTH AVERAHALY THIMMAIAH,
CHAIRMAN,
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS,
KARNATAKA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD,
PARISARA BHAVAN, NO.49, CHURCH ST,
BENGALURU, KARNATAKA - 560 001.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. G S KANNUR.,SENIOR ADVOCATE A/W
SRI. MURUGESH V CHARATI.,ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
Digitally signed REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
by SHARADA DEPARTMENT OF FOREST,
VANI B
ECOLOGY & ENVIRONMENT,
Location: HIGH
COURT OF NO.708, MS BUILDING, 7TH FLOOR,
KARNATAKA AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU - 560 001.
2. KARNATAKA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD,
PARISARA BHAVAN, NO.49, CHURCH ST,
BENGALURU, KARNATAKA - 560 001
REPRESENTED BY ITS MEMBER SECRETARY
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.SHASHI KIRAN SHETTY., ADVOCATE GENERAL A/W
SRI.S S MAHENDRA.,PRINCIPAL GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE
FOR R1;
SRI.P S RAJAGOPAL., SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR
SRI.A MAHESH CHOWDHARY., ADVOCATE FOR R2)
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:440-DB
WP No. 29133 of 2023
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO A) ISSUE A WRIT
OF APPROPRIATE NATURE INCLUDING A WRIT IN NATURE OF
CERTIORARI TO QUASH THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE 241ST
BOARD MEETING OF THE KSPCB HELD ON 28/08/2023 IN
SUBJECT NO.241:36 WHICH IS PRODUCED AND MARKED AS
ANNEXURE-C WHICH IS APPROVED IN THE BOARD MEETING
DATED 20/12/2023 AND B) PASS SUCH OTHER ORDERS.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY,
CHIEF JUSTICE MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
This petition seeks to call in question the agenda item No.241/03 as resolved in the board meeting of the KSPCB held on 28.08.2023 followed by its approval in the subsequent board meeting dated 20.12.2023. Apparently, these resolutions are in the nature of recommendations for the amendment of certain extant Rules.
2. Learned Sr. Advocate appearing for the petitioner vehemently argues that the impugned board resolutions have the potential to denigrate the official position of the petitioner who happens to be the present incumbent of the office of the Chairman of the Board of KSPCB and that does not accord with the legal regime namely, the provisions of the Water (Prevention and -3- NC: 2024:KHC:440-DB WP No. 29133 of 2023 Control of Pollution Act), 1974. He also draws our attention to certain observations made by us in petitioner's W.P.No.19569/2023 and connected cases disposed off on 29.11.2023. Learned Advocate General appearing for the first respondent-State and learned Sr. Advocate appearing for the second respondent-KSPCB resist the petition contending that the impugned Board Resolutions do not have any force proprio vigore; they are only in the nature of recommendations which the Government may or may not act upon; the petition is too premature to be entertained.
3. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and having perused the petitioner papers we are broadly in agreement with the submission made on behalf of the respondents as above. It cannot be gainfully disputed that the impugned Board Resolutions are not on their own capable of curtailing the stature and functions of the writ petitioner. It hardly needs to be stated that, the petitioner occupies a pivotal position which aspect has -4- NC: 2024:KHC:440-DB WP No. 29133 of 2023 been discussed in our judgement dated 29.11.2023, copy whereof avails at Annexure-K.
4. As a rightly contended on behalf of the respondents that the subject Board Resolutions are recommendatory in nature; the Rule making power vested in the Government under Section 64 of the 1974 Act cannot be interdicted by a writ court in the guise of quashing the Board Resolutions. It hardly needs to be stated that Court cannot prevent or pre-empt the exercise of legislative or quasi-legislative power statutorily vested in the Authorities, since they have principal elements of policy. Added, we are not shorn any provision of law that interdicts the power of the Board to pass resolutions of the kind. In fact, the proviso to Section 64 stipulates that the State Government shall not make, amend, vary or repeal any Rule without consulting the Board and thus, Board is within its competence in passing the impugned Resolutions. Petitioner has registered his dissent to the same does not make any difference to the stated position. -5-
NC: 2024:KHC:440-DB WP No. 29133 of 2023
5. The apprehension of the petitioner that even before the extant Rules are amended in terms of Board recommendation, the subject Resolutions may be acted upon the Board to the prejudice his official stature/function is not well founded. It hardly needs to be stated that till the Rules are amended, the existing position would continue as has been hitherto.
In the above circumstances and with the above observations, the writ petition is dismissed, costs having been made easy.
Sd/-
CHIEF JUSTICE Sd/-
JUDGE Snb, List No.: 1 Sl No.: 55