Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 4, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

M/S Vinayaka Wood Works vs Karnataka State Pollution Control ... on 22 November, 2024

                                                -1-
                                                          NC: 2024:KHC:47559-DB
                                                          WP No. 30912 of 2024




                          IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

                            DATED THIS THE 22ND 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. 30912 OF 2024 (GM-POL)

                   BETWEEN:

                   1.   M/S VINAYAKA WOOD WORKS,
                        MELAPPA BADAVANE,
                        NEAR JAYADEVA HOSPITAL,
                        CHIKKAGOLLARAHATTI,
                        MAGADI MAIN ROAD,
                        BENGALURU - 560023.
                        REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR,
                        S. DEVARAJ,
                        S/O SRINIVASCHAR,
                        AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,
                        RESIDING AT
                        MAGADI MAIN ROAD,
Digitally signed        DASANAPURA HOBLI,
by VALLI                NEAR GOVERNMENT SCHOOL,
MARIMUTHU               CHIKKAGOLLARAHATTI,
Location: High          BENGALURU NORTH TALUK,
Court of                VISHWANEEDAM,
Karnataka               BENGALURU - 560091.
                                                                   ...PETITIONER
                   (BY SRI T. PRAKASH, ADVOCATE)
                   AND:

                   1.   KARNATAKA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD,
                        HAVING ITS OFFICE AT
                        PARISAR BHAVAN,
                        No.33, CHURCH STREET,
                        SHANTHALA NAGAR,
                              -2-
                                       NC: 2024:KHC:47559-DB
                                       WP No. 30912 of 2024




     BENGALURU - 560 001,
     REP. BY ITS CHAIRMAN.

2.   THE ENVIRONMENTAL OFFICER,
     KARNATAKA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD,
     REGIONAL OFFICE,
     DASARAHALLI,
     BENGALURU - 560057.
                                        ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI A. MAHESH CHOWDHARY, ADVOCATE)

      THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT
IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED
ORDER No. PCB/SEO-ENF-CMP/CLOSURE (APC)/ 2024-25/241
DATED 21.10.2024 VIDE ANNEXURE-A PASSED BY RESPONDENT
No. 1, KARNATAKA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD, UNDER
SECTION 31(A) OF AIR (PREVENTION AND CONTROL OF
POLLUTION ACT 1991 READ WITH RULE 20 (A) OF KARNATAKA AIR
(PREVENTION AND CONTROL OF POLLUTION) RULES 1983, FOR
CLOSURE OF THE PETITIONERS UNIT i.e., M/s. VINAYAKA WOOD
WORKS AND ETC.

     THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

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. T. Prakash for the petitioner and learned advocate Mr. A. Mahesh Chowdhary who appeared for the respondents upon service of copy of the petition in advance.

-3-

NC: 2024:KHC:47559-DB WP No. 30912 of 2024

2. Invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner seeks to call in question the order dated 21.10.2024 passed by respondent No.1-Karnataka State Pollution Control Board, whereby, the industrial unit of the petitioner was ordered to be closed down and the operations of the unit were prohibited forthwith and until further orders.

2.1 The order was passed in exercise of powers under 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.

3. The petitioner is engaged in the wood cutting and plaining. It is stated that when the unit was inspected on 23.07.2024, it was inter alia noticed that the operation of the unit was causing noise pollution and dust emission to the surrounding environment and was also causing smell nuisance due to polishing activity. Inspection report of Regional Officer, Dasarahalli, came to be forwarded to the Pollution Control Board recommending action against the unit by issuing closure directions under the provisions of the Air Act of 1981. -4-

NC: 2024:KHC:47559-DB WP No. 30912 of 2024 3.1 The Pollution Control Board referred about the proceedings before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Writ Petition No.375 of 2012 in which order dated 22.02.2017 was passed therein. Also mentioned in the impugned order was, dated 08.05.2013 passed by the National Green Tribunal in Application No.37 of 2013 which provide for taking of action against such erring units.

4. In course of the hearing, when query was put to learned advocate for the petitioner as to whether the petitioner-Unit has got consent under the Act, learned advocate for the petitioner was fair to admit that no consent is granted.

5. The order is passed on the ground of non-availability of consent which becomes an admitted ground in view of this fair submission on the part of learned advocate for the petitioner. 5.1 Learned advocate for the respondents would point out from the record that the petitioner has filed the application dated 12.11.2024 before the Pollution Control Board seeking necessary consent. He submitted that though by the letter dated 12.11.2024 permission is sought for, the application is not in requisite format.

-5-

NC: 2024:KHC:47559-DB WP No. 30912 of 2024 5.2 The aspect emerges clear and undisputed that the petitioner is not having consent to operate the unit. Secondly, the aforesaid application dated 12.11.2024 was filed just a day before filing of the petition. The conduct speaks for itself. 5.3 Learned advocate for the petitioner who wanted to rely on Rule 20-A(3) of the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) (Union Territories) Rules, 1983 to submit that hearing was necessary before taking the action.

5.4 This submission falls flat when it is an undisputed position that the consent is not granted to the petitioner unit. When there is no consent and non-availability of consent is the ground for closure, giving opportunity of hearing was to be a futile exercise. The principles of natural justice does not operate in futility. On that count, the submission that the hearing is not given is of no consequence.

6. In the aforesaid circumstances, no relief to the petitioner could be granted in this petition. The petition is devoid of merits.

7. Thus no relief is liable to be granted in this petition except observing that if the petitioner makes an application for -6- NC: 2024:KHC:47559-DB WP No. 30912 of 2024 obtaining consent in accordance with the procedure and in the requisite format by paying necessary fees etc., the Pollution Control Board shall consider the same strictly on merits and in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible and preferably within six weeks. This Court, however, does not express anything on merits about such application.

Sd/-

(N. V. ANJARIA) CHIEF JUSTICE Sd/-

(K. V. ARAVIND) JUDGE VBS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 14