Karnataka High Court
Govardhan Accumulators vs The Karnataka State Pollution Control ... on 4 July, 2024
Author: Krishna S Dixit
Bench: Krishna S Dixit
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:30823-DB
RP No. 509 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF JULY, 2024
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. N. V. ANJARIA, CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNA S DIXIT
REVIEW PETITION NO. 509 OF 2023
IN
WRIT PETITION NO.19194/2023 (GM-POL)
BETWEEN:
1. GOVARDHAN ACCUMULATORS
81-E1, JIGANI INDUSTRIAL AREA
ANEKAL TALUK, BANGALORE - 562106
REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORISED PERSON
MR. LOKESH SUBRAMANI
Digitally ...PETITIONER
signed by
PRABHAKAR (BY SRI SHIVARAJ N. ARALI, ADVOCATE)
SWETHA
KRISHNAN AND:
Location:
High Court of 1. THE KARNATAKA STATE POLLUTION
Karnataka
CONTROL BOARD
PARISARA BHAVANA
1ST TO 5TH FLOOR
NO.49, CHURCH STREET
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:30823-DB
RP No. 509 of 2023
BENGALURU - 560 001,
REPRESENTED BY ITS
MEMBER SECRETARY.
2. THE ENVIROMENTAL OFFICER
KSPCB REGIONAL OFFICE-ANEKAL
NISARGA BHAVAN,
THIMMAIAH ROAD
7TH D MAIN, SHIVANAGAR
BENGALURU - 560 058.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI A. MAHESH CHOWDHARY, ADVOCATE FOR R1 & R2)
THIS REVIEW PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 114
R/W ORDER 47 RULE 1 OF CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE,1908
PRAYING THAT, THIS REVIEW PETITION BE ALLOWED TO
REVIEW ANNEXURE-A ORDER DATED 07/09/2023 IN W.P.
NO.19194/2023 PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT.
THIS REVIEW PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION
THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
-3-
NC: 2024:KHC:30823-DB
RP No. 509 of 2023
CORAM: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. JUSTICE
N. V. ANJARIA
and
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE KRISHNA S DIXIT
ORAL ORDER
(PER: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. JUSTICE N. V. ANJARIA) Heard learned advocate Mr. Shivaraj N. Arali for the review petitioner and learned advocate Mr. A. Mahesh Chowdhary for the respondent-the Karnataka State Pollution Control Board and its authority.
2. The petitioner has prayed to review order dated 07.09.2023 passed in Writ Petition No.19194 of 2023. By the said order, the Co-ordinate Bench did not accept the prayer of the petitioner for consideration of the case on merits and disposed of the petition giving liberty to the petitioner to avail the remedy of appeal under Section 33B of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974.
3. The challenge in the writ petition was against the demand notice dated 12.07.2023 issued by respondent No.2-the -4- NC: 2024:KHC:30823-DB RP No. 509 of 2023 Environmental Officer, imposing and directing the petitioner to pay Interim Environment Compensation of Rs.2,67,15,000/- within stipulated time. The other prayer was made to direct the respondents to consider the reply of the petitioner dated 03.08.2023 to the said demand notice and pass appropriate orders.
4. Following grounds came to be advanced by the petitioner seeking review of the order,
(i) Notice dated 12.07.2023 imposing Interim Environment Compensation on the petitioner-unit was based on the order passed by the National Green Tribunal, Principal Bench (NGT) in Original Application No.1038 of 2018. In the said order of the NGT, there was no direction for imposition of environmental compensation as sought to be stated to justify the impugned demand.
(ii) Notice was issued without providing opportunity of personal hearing. Therefore, it was in breach of principles of natural justice.
(iii) Not only that, it stood opposed of the very order of the NGT dated 29.08.2022 in Original Application No.1038 of 2018 which was relied on.
(iv) The order was against the provisions of Sections 15 and 16 of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010. -5-
NC: 2024:KHC:30823-DB RP No. 509 of 2023
(v) The Co-ordinate Bench, while relegating the petitioner to the remedy of appeal under Section 33B of the Water Act, was guided by and relied on the order in Trinity Meadows Apartment Owners' Association Vs. The State Pollution Control Board and others, which was Writ Petition No.6624 of 2020 decided on 04.01.2023 on the footing that the said case and the instant case had similar facts, although the facts of the decision in Trinity Meadows (supra) were entirely different. The decision in Trinity Meadows (supra) was with different facts not comparable to the present case.
(vi) The decision which was in Suhas S.Kulkarni Vs. Karnataka State Pollution Control Board and others in the order dated 08.11.2022 in Writ Petition No.22831 of 2021 was required to be followed.
(vii) The decision in the order dated 16.03.2020 in Writ Petition No.5847 of 2020 and cognate petitions in M/s. Paragon Polymers Products Private Limited Vs. The Karnataka State Pollution Control Board decided on 16.03.2020 ought to have been followed, wherein similar demand notice for Interim Environment Compensation was set aside on the ground that the same was not justified by any statutory provisions.
4.1 On the other hand, on behalf of the respondents, the prayer for review was opposed.
-6-
NC: 2024:KHC:30823-DB RP No. 509 of 2023
5. Having given the attentive and anxious consideration to the aforementioned grounds and aspects raised by the review petitioner for recalling and reviewing order dated 07.09.2023 passed in Writ Petition No.19194 of 2023, it could be noticed that the NGT, in its order dated 29.08.2022 in Original Application No.1038 of 2018, had not given any positive or specific direction regarding imposition of Interim Environment Compensation against any industry.
5.1 The observations of the NGT were as under, "...However it cannot be doubted that, if any action is taken against any individual industry or group of industries as a whole by issuing any direction of closure or cancellation of any permission or NOC or clearance or imposition of environmental compensation etc. in such case, the principle of natural justice would have to be complied with, notices have to be issued and after giving opportunity of hearing, appropriate orders would be passed..."
5.2 Furthermore, there is no gainsaying that the impugned demand notice regarding Interim Environment Compensation was issued without hearing the petitioner and thus, was in breach of the tenets of natural justice. The notice remained in breach of the -7- NC: 2024:KHC:30823-DB RP No. 509 of 2023 fundamental principles when the Board did not provide the petitioner any right to be heard.
5.3 When appeals were filed before the Hon'ble Supreme Court against the aforementioned order of the NGT in Original Application No.1038 of 2018 in the case of Chamber of Small Industry Associations Vs. Central Pollution Control Board and another being Civil Appeal Nos.2218-2219 of 2020, it was observed in paragraph 12 that each of the appellants had requested for blanket stay of the directions issued by the Tribunal and had not confined their prayer either to individual appellants or to the respective members of their association, "even then all the concerned must have a liberty to present their view before the tribunal". 5.4 Noticeably, the order brought under review dated 07.09.2023 was passed on a misconceived notion by relying on the decision in Trinity Meadows (supra) in Writ Petition No.6624 of 2020. The said decision could not have been applied to guide the decision in the present case. In that case, there was no reference to Section 33A of the Water Act. Secondly, in the backdrop, unlike in the present case there was a direction to NGT to levy environment compensation and as a consequence of failure to abide by the said -8- NC: 2024:KHC:30823-DB RP No. 509 of 2023 direction, notice came to be issued to the said petitioner by the Board.
5.5 In that case, the challenge was specifically to show cause as to why the power supply should not be cut off, which was issued under Section 33A of the Water Act whereas, in the present case, the notice/order could not be said to have been falling within the purview of Section 33A of the Water Act to become appealable under Section 33B of the Water Act. The misapplication of the decision in Trinity Meadows (supra) is coupled with the aspect as stated above, that the petitioner was not heard and that the petitioner had no liberty to submit its case.
6. All the above constitute an error apparent on the face of record. The order dated 07.09.2023 passed in Writ Petition No.19194 of 2023 thus suffers from fundamental error which could be immediately noticed without undergoing the process of elaborate reasoning. In view of the error apparent on the face of the order, the said order is liable to be recalled and reviewed.
7. Accordingly the order dated 07.09.2023 passed in Writ Petition No.19194 of 2023 is recalled and reviewed and stands set aside.
-9-
NC: 2024:KHC:30823-DB RP No. 509 of 2023 The writ petition shall be posted for consideration thereof afresh on merits before the appropriate Bench as per the roster.
Sd/-
(N. V. ANJARIA) CHIEF JUSTICE Sd/-
(KRISHNA S DIXIT) JUDGE KPS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 3